Dear Col Kurup, You are too emotionally attached to this matter to debate logically. I am only debating this academically (for further education) since I have high regard for you.
1) It is very well settled that when there are multiple remedies for granting a particular relief, the litigant may only agitate one of them. This is allied to the legal concept of "res adjudicata" or "a thing once decided cannot be reagitated again (and again)". So you must choose to use 18(3) or 19(1) but not both. This principle is so well settled that it is not inserted into the laws of India. 2) 18(3) is the specific provision in the RTI Act for your lis - namely deemed refusal of the PIO. You failed to use it at the right time. 3) Having chosen the route of 19(3) which is ALSO permissible, you should have followed it up with a 2nd Appeal rather than going for 18(3) complaint after the avenue was closed. 4) S'CIC very kindly allowed you to continue on to 2nd Appeal, but you chose not to pursue it. 5) A bad carpenter blames his tools. Either be a bad carpenter with better tools OR become a good carpenter who will be able to work with the very poor tools of RTI Act. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "colnrkurup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I repeat that this may kindly be considered only as an accademic > discussion clarifying a very vital factor to prevent hijacking of the > RTI Act by some of the corrupt and influencial officials with the > connivance of the Commissions. > 1. There is absolutely no provision anywhere in the Act that > stipulate that a First Appeal under 19(1) bar a complaint u/s 18(1)(c) > 2. In fact one is not expected to approach SIC/CIC as and when with > the deemed refusal of the PIO lest the Commission is over-burdened. > It is normal protocal to approach the Commission only when an > aggrieved exhaust all other opportunitiesstipulated in the Act. > Naturally when the PIO refuces, one should approach his AA by the > only means of approach viz., first appeal. In majority of the cases > the AA will direct the PIO to furnish the reply - it maynot be the > information sought; but one will get a reply as the PIO will not have > any reason for not replying.I donot find anything wrong in making one > more first appeal based on the reply if required. In case this > second "first appeal" is rejected, it is good enough reason. > 3. Section 19(1) is very specific. Any person not receiving a > decision ....may file an appeal. IT DOES NOT SAY SAY that on deemed > refusal one should not file first appeal but should resort to > complaint only. > 4. Sec 19(3) is too specific. A SECOND APPEAL SHALL LIE ONLY AGAINST > THE DECISION UNDER 19(1). This means that there could be no Second > Appeal unless there is a DECISION of first appeal. If there is NO > DECISION or NO REPLY, there cannot be a Second appeal. The Act does > not allow it.Of course anything can happen in "KHANSI RAM KA > PALTAN ".Thjat is a diferant matter altogether > 5. Kindly forget the number of days or delay aspects. That is not > the issue > 6. Can anyone quote the relevant Section of the Act which says that A > SECOND APEAL SDHALL LIE without a First Appeal ? > 7. Can any one quote the Section which bar a complaint when first > ppeal is made or rather where does it state that a first appeal > disqualify the appellant from making a complaint. > 8. Kindly leave aside the somersoult of First appeal, Second appeal > and complaint. Let us examine the ground realities. A cityzen make an > application seeking an information falling under the defenition of > information given in Section 2(f). The information is held by the PA > and not falling under any of the exedmptions or disportionately > divert the resosurces nor spoil the record. Can anyone, PIO or AA or > the SIC, deny it and dismiss the case just because the information if > given will expose serious corruption which the PIO, AA and SIC does > not want to disclose. By converting the Complaint suo motu into a > Second appeal the sIC has barred the appellant's chance to prefer the > second appeal with relevant provisions which does not suit the PIO,AA > and SIC. With such a disposal how can one approach judiciary ? These > are all deliberate hy-jacking theRTI Act. I feel that forums likeRTI- > india should stand for that. Can anyone justify the above > actofSIC,Kerala ? It is an open challenge >
