The public information officer, unfortunately, did not provide any information to the information seeker, thereby leaving the individual in a state of confusion and frustration regarding their request.
As a result of this lack of communication and transparency, an RTI appeal was subsequently filed against the public information officer, aiming to challenge the officer’s decision and seek the necessary information that is rightfully due to the information seeker under the Right to Information Act.

📜 RTI First Appeal Analysis: Delay in Information Provision by PIO

This blog post analyzes the details of a First Appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, primarily on the grounds of “No Response Within the Time Limit” by the Public Information Officer (PIO). The RTI Act is a significant piece of legislation that empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, fostering transparency and accountability in governance.
When an individual submits an RTI request, the PIO is mandated to respond within a stipulated timeframe, typically 30 days. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for these requests to go unanswered, which can lead to frustration among citizens who are trying to exercise their right to access information.
This post will delve into the procedural aspects of filing a First Appeal, the implications of delayed responses, and the potential remedies available to applicants under the Act, thereby shedding light on the critical importance of timeliness in the RTI process.

---

Overview of the RTI Request and Appeal

The appellant, Shri Yogi M P Singh, filed an RTI application which was not answered within the stipulated 30-day period, leading to the filing of a First Appeal.
This delay in response not only raised concerns about the adherence to the guidelines set forth under the Right to Information Act but also indicated a lack of accountability from the concerned authorities.
As a proactive citizen seeking transparency, Shri Singh anticipated a prompt resolution to his inquiry, which was crucial for ensuring informed decision-making.
Consequently, the inaction prompted him to escalate the matter, underscoring the importance of timely communication in a democratic framework and the necessity of upholding citizens’ rights to access information.

Initial RTI Application (Under Section 6(1))

• Applicant Name: Yogi M P Singh
• Public Authority: PURVANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED (PUVVNL)
• RTI Registration Number: PUVNL/R/2025/60167
• Date of Filing: 21/03/2025
• Initial PIO: RAMESH CHAND (FINANCE), ACCOUNTING OFFICER
• Request Status (as of 02/04/2025): REQUEST TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PIO

First Appeal (Under Section 19(1))

• Appeal Registration Number: PUVNL/A/2025/60104
• Date of Filing: 21/04/2025
• Ground for Appeal: No Response Within the Time Limit
• Concerned Appellate Authority (FAA): Vishv Deep Ambardar (AA DISCOM PUVVNL), CHIEF ENGINEER (Technical)

---

The Timeline of Non-Compliance

The core of the appeal rests on the violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates a response (providing the information or rejecting the request) within thirty days of receiving the application.
This provision is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in public authorities, as it empowers citizens to seek information without unreasonable delays.
Compliance with this timeline is essential, not only for upholding the rights of individuals but also for fostering a culture of openness in governance.
The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement can exacerbate public mistrust and hinder the effectiveness of the Right to Information framework, undermining the very essence of informed citizen engagement that the Act strives to promote.
Hence, it is imperative that such violations be addressed promptly to restore faith in the mechanisms designed to facilitate citizen access to information.

1. 21/03/2025: Initial RTI Application Filed (Reg. No. PUVNL/R/2025/60167).
2. 02/04/2025: Request Transferred to the concerned PIO (RAMESH CHAND, FINANCE) (after 12 days).
3. 07/04/2025: A letter was sent by the Nodal PIO to the Accounts Officer (Budget) requesting him to provide the information to the undersigned within the prescribed time limit.
4. 20/04/2025: 30-day statutory time limit for providing information expires.
5. 21/04/2025: First Appeal Filed (Reg. No. PUVNL/A/2025/60104), stating a 32-day delay at the time of filing.

As of the appeal date (21/04/2025), the PIO had not furnished the requested information, which is a clear failure to comply with the statutory timeline under Section 7(1).

---

Prayer/Relief Sought by the Appellant

The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, has requested two specific actions from the First Appellate Authority (FAA): first, a comprehensive review of the initial decision made by the lower authority, which he believes was not only flawed but also lacked substantial evidence to support its conclusions;
second, he seeks a transparent disclosure of the underlying rationale that led to that decision, as he feels that understanding the basis for the ruling is paramount in ensuring fairness and accountability in the administrative process.

1. Direction to Provide Information: To immediately direct the Public Information Officer (PIO) to furnish the information sought by the appellant.
2. Initiation of Disciplinary Action: To initiate disciplinary proceedings against the PIO for violating Sub-section 1 of Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, due to the failure to respond within the prescribed time limit.

---

Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The FAA, Vishv Deep Ambardar (CHIEF ENGINEER (Technical)), is now required to adjudicate this appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.

• The FAA must inquire into the reasons for the delay/non-response.
• The FAA has the power to pass an order requiring the PIO to provide the information immediately or within a specified time.
• While the FAA typically focuses on the provision of information, the appeal raises the issue of non-compliance. If the delay is found to be without reasonable cause, the FAA’s order can reflect this serious lapse. Persistent or unwarranted delays often become the basis for subsequent penalties imposed by the State Information Commission (SIC) or Central Information Commission (CIC) upon a Second Appeal.

---

Next Steps in the RTI Process

1. FAA Hearing/Order: The First Appellate Authority (Mr. Ambardar) will review the appeal and pass a speaking order, likely directing the PIO to provide the information.
2. Second Appeal: If the appellant remains dissatisfied with the FAA’s decision, or if the FAA also fails to pass an order within 30-45 days, the appellant has the option to file a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttar Pradesh under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

---

Would you like to know the typical grounds and process for filing a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission?