Dear brothers,
I have not been bringing out individual cases of CIC other than
policy dcisions, leaving such issue to those at Delhi. Still, let me
bring out at least one case pending with CIC to highlight the plight
of the cityzens at this end of our Nation . My second appeal of
12-2-2007 confirmed by P&T as delivered to CIC could not be locatted.
Ms.Nisha Singh,The Registrar,CIC has confirmed its receipt by her
but told me that it is missing in theprocess of transfer from
Mr.Tiwari to CIC as the defence subject being transferred to CIC..
On Ms. Nisha Singh's personal request I had sent fresh sets which
she has confirmed as received and case number
(CIC/WB/A/2007/00464) alloted. CIC's web also show it as received on
24-3-2007. I have been intimating the CIC that "myself being a
senior cityzen and retired defence service personnel, my case may
kindly be taken up on priority with request to hear me through "Vedio
Conference at District Headfquarter Kannur Collectorate, Kerala "
where this facility exist" But nothing heard so far. If this could
be my plight what could the fate of less fortunate ? Any explanation ?
--- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DEAR SIRS,
> KINDLY SUGGEST WHAT ALTNATIVE I HAVE, IN PRESENT SITUATION.
> i filed RTI request. No information is given. However, LD CPIO
had inform me that he will shortly supply the infomation . after 45
days of RTI , i had filed first appeal. A A directed to supply the
information.
> However, after 6 months of AA order no infomation is supplied.
> After this, i had filed complaint with CIC. CIC had registered as
appeal, and no date of hearing is fixed till date although three
months are over.
> Is CIC is right to register complaint as appeal , when F AA order
is direction to CPIO to supply the infomation.
> Is it not delay tactis by CIC.
> with regards
> rakesh gupta
>
> sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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" <colnrkurup@> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
