Thank you Mr.Sarbajit,
Though this case does not pertains to me, NOW YOU GOT IT. This
exactly was the gist of my plea. The CIC/SIC does not like the extra
load and we should avoid unnecessarily overloading them. In normal
cases, as a policy, when a first appeal can solve a problem easily,
why should one resort to second appeal especially the Act does not
secifically debar it ? Thank you once again.
With reards
Col Kurup
--- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Rakesh,
>
> Your case clearly falls u/s 19. You file RTI and PIO promises to
give
> information although belated. After 45 days of RTI you file FA,
> Appellate orders PIO to give information. Even after 6 months you
dont
> get information so you file COMPLAINT which is converted to 2nd
Appeal
> by CIC. You are still awaiting date at CIC. At *present time* your
> case falls under section 19.
>
> Had you filed a Complaint instead of First Appeal, your case would
> have been different. What is clearly emerging from these discussion
> (your case / Col Kurup's matter) is that Complaint should be made
> immediately after expiry of about 35-40 days of filing the RTIO
> request. By scheme of RTI Act Section 18 Complaints are the
PREFERRED
> route vis-a-vis Section 19 Appeals. However, the CIC/SIC will not
like
> this (extra load on them), so they will do their best to divert
> citizens to file First Appeals INSTEAD.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@> wrote:
> >
> > dear sir,
> > kindly note , my case does not fall any sub section section 19 of
> appeal.
> > because no decision is made for denial, and they had promise to
> provide the information.
> > although no information is provided till date.However it fala in
> section 18(1) of the RTI ACt.
> > with regards
> > rakesh gupta
> >
> > sroy1947 <sroy1947@> wrote: Hi
Rakesh,
> >
> > Your case is very different from Col Kurup's.
> >
> > Neither PIO nor AA has denied you information or cited any
exemption.
> > In fact the intention is clearly to give you the information.
since
> > you were late in filing 2nd Appeal you filed complaint probably
> > relying upon the clauses 18(1)(c) and/or 18(1)(e). CIC has
converted
> > this to appeal and registered it.
> >
> > Since delay in filing seems condoned, and for Central matters
there is
> > not much difference between Complaint and Appeal, all that
remains now
> > is for your appeal to be disposed of in the normal course - CIC
is
> > running late by 6/9 months now. The only alternative you have is
to go
> > to High Court in Writ jurisdiction asking for supervision of CIC
u/a
> > 227. If there are some compelling grounds for urgency, you can
inform
> > these to C'IC or CIC Registry asking for early date BEFORE going
to
> > High Court.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@> 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 <sroy1947@> 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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Chat on a cool, new interface. No download required. Click here.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
