If (?) what I say is correct ?? Jokes apart, by 18(3) only a few powers of a Civil Court (while trying a *SUIT* under CPC) are conferred on CIC. For such limited matters only the procedure of CPC shall doubtless be applicable.
The CPC shall not be applicable to "hearings" of CIC, as it is not empowered in this behalf by it's "CPC powers" but by its own powers conferred by the RTI Act - ie. including the infamous 12(4). In legal parlance, the CIC is a creature of the RTI Act and must act within the 4 corners of its statute. Having powers does not require the power to be exercised on every occasion. BTW, these great "CPC powers" are nowadays available to every 'chucha pucha' Commission and Tribunal. The CIC has less civil powers than an assistant district judge, so for misguided RTI activists (oops they call themselves RTI "promoters" nowadays) to equate lowly ICs with exalted Supreme Court Judges is a bit thick (in the head). Sarbajit PS: Thanks again for the 7(3) BSNL decision link. I was able to use it in submissions to the Commission. --- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] >
