Mr Sarbajit,
If what you say is correct, then do the proceedings and orders of the CIC/SIC
in conducting a hearing, in case of a Complaint under Sec 18, have to be as per
procedures laid down in the CPC ?
RTIwanted
From: sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear CK
18(1) makes it mandatory ("shall") for the Commission to receive and
inquire into each and every complaint conveyed to it.
18(1) further sets out the "reasonable grounds" for lodging such a
complaint
18(2) says that if there are satisfactory grounds disclosed then an
"inquiry" "may" (may=shall except where the context does not permit
it) be initiated.
18(3) is the one, which confers the powers of a Civil Court for
inquiring into the matter. These powers are not limited only to a
inquiry of 18(2) but also extend to the "inquiring into"of 18(1).
18(4) is limited to the 18(2) case.
It appears that 18(1) is a registry function whereas 18(2) is for the
"Bench".
The fact that an IC (such as IC(T)) is passing an order means that it
is an 18(2) inquiry. Which makes it even more surprising that this
evidently serious incident has been hushed up.
It is also pertinent to set out the distinction between "enquiry" and
"inquiry" as used in Commonwealth countries.
"In the USA, inquire is generally used in place of enquire. Where
enquire is used (particularly in the UK), it means a non-official
enquiry (such as to ask a question), whereas inquire is used in legal
or government context where official transcripts are generated. In the
USA, this distinction is not made and inquire is used generally."
http://en.wiktionar y.org/wiki/ enquire
The fact that the CI is getting away with all this is because we let
them get away with it. How much can a Rambo (or 2) do?
Sarbajit
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
