A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters


CIC: The FAA ought to have ensured compliance of his orders - CIC: The information has been furnished with avoidable delay - CIC: As the then PIO had superannuated, the Commission took a lenient view and disposed the appeal     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal filed by the appellant - CIC: Being a quasi judicial body, the FAA should have given an opportunity of hearing the appellant & then passed a speaking order; The FAA has failed to exercise his powers     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant maintained that incomplete and misleading information has been provided - CIC: PIO to affirm on affidavit that relevant records as sought for by the Appellant has been provided to him and no other document on the subject is available in records     Right to Information Act 2005    Details of a Resident including his date of birth with proof; the name of his School along with mark sheets of class 10th and 12th; the date of his joining and other issues related thereto - CIC: No further intervention is required in the matter     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Although malafide intention is not apparent in the denial of information, the gross non-application of mind by the PIO & misplaced reliance on earlier decisions of the CIC is strongly evinced - CIC expressed severe displeasure against the then PIO     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought information about departmental inquiry report against the Branch Manager for sanctioning forged KCC loan - CIC: Provide certified copies of the final order passed after the departmental inquiry and certified copy of complete KCC Loan file     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    How much respect should the order of the Supreme Court command?     Right to Information Act 2005    Can a Court disallow what an officer can permit under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the recent appointment of Government Officials as Information Commissioners null and void?     Right to Information Act 2005   
FAQ

Who is the 'concerned' PIO to whom an application should be filed?

The RTI Act requires that an applicant should address the application to the PIO of the ‘concerned’ public authority. Ordinarily, the applicant knows where the required information is available and should contact the relevant office, ascertain who the relevant PIO is and file the request. A citizen may wrongly apply to a PIO believing that the information sought by him would be available with the public authority to which he has addressed the application. In such a situation, the PIO receiving the application should transfer the application to the concerned PIO.

If an application is submitted to a PIO with whom the information is not available but the information is available with another officer within the same Public Authority, the PIO is duty bound to get the same from the concerned officer in the public authority and supply the same to the applicant. If the information pertains to some other public authority, the PIO is required to transfer the application to such public authority within five days of the receipt of the application under intimation to the applicant.