Thanks, but in the first place I am neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional expert.
Can you please quote the section of the RTI Act which according to you permits one to go in for an appeal in a Court of law, challenging the order passed under the act. As far as I understand sec.19 covers all about appeal under the RTI act, and in brief it states that a RTI applicant may prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank in each public authority, and not a Court of law. The reason for this discussions on board is to understand as to how an order passed under the act can be challenged in a Court of law when it is clearly written in the RTI act "Bar of Jurisdiction of Court" In that case what does sec.22 in plain English language mean? Warm Regards, On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 Vikram Simha wrote : >Point No 7 ---- How Please Explain , Next You have not Answered My Query on >the Act Permitting to go in Appeal . Also on the Supreme court Registry >Approaching Delhi High Court . Have you discussed all these with some >Constitutional Expert . My Discussions of the Same with An Former Chief >Justice of Supreme Court of India brings out that there is no water in your >Arguments . >Finally only one thing is left will you please Argue on behalf of Mr Kalidas >reddy in Karnataka High Court that "rule nisi" is not applied and no Stay >Permitted and No body has any Locus standi to go in appeal to High courts on >Information Commissions decesions . >I earnestly hope with your vast knowledge you will certainly help Mr Kalidas >Reddy >N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte & Trustee RTI Study Centre , #12 Sumeru Sir M N >Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. > >--- On Thu, 12/3/09, abhi987 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: abhi987 <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [rti_india] BBMP Questions Karnataka Information >Commissions Power To Provide Compensati >To: [email protected] >Cc: "Vikram Simha" <[email protected]> >Date: Thursday, 12 March, 2009, 9:13 AM > > > > > > >Dear Friend, > >1) I suppose the Constitution of India supersedes any other law in our country. > >2) Parliament comes into existence by virtue of the Constitution of India. > >3) Having come into existence Parliamentarians can amend the Constitution of >India, if the majority of them vote in one direction. > >4) The Parliament has passed the RTI Act, 2005. > >5) It is clearly stated in the act that no Court shall entertain any order/ >decision passed under the RTI act. > >6) It is also clearly stated in the act that the Act will have an overriding >effect in case of conflict with any other law prevailing in the country for >the time being in force. > >7) A Court can definitely entertain a WP on the Information Commissioner >him/herself as he/she is not above the law, but a Court of law cannot >entertain a WP challenging an order/decision passed by him/her under the RTI >act. > >8) I suppose the Court will first have to invoke Article 228 of the >Constitution, clarify the interpretation of the RTI Act sec. 22 & 23 and then >entertain any proceeding against the order/decision passed under the RTI act >by invoking Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution. > >I would appreciate your point of view on the arguments above. > >Warm Regards. > >On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 Vikram Simha wrote : > >Dear Freind , > >please Explain the Words ""wise than by way of an appeal under this act " > >in the context of your Argument that it is bad in law and Act is passed by > >parliament > > > >N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte& Trustee RTI Study Centre , #12 Sumeru Sir M N > >Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. > > > >--- On Wed, 11/3/09, abhi987 <abhi...@rediffmail. com> wrote: > > > > > > From: abhi987 <abhi...@rediffmail. com> > >Subject: Re: Re: [rti_india] BBMP Questions Karnataka Information > >Commissions Power To Provide Compensation in Ka > >To: vikramsimha54@ yahoo.co. in > >Cc: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > >Date: Wednesday, 11 March, 2009, 8:44 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Vikram, > > > >RTI act has been passed by the Parliament, and it is very clear under sec. > >23 that the orders/decisions passed under the act cannot be entertained by > >any court of law. > > > >In my view if a Court has entertained any order/decision passed under the > >RTI act it is bad in law. > > > >Kindly elaborate your point of view. > > > >Warm Regards. > > > > > >On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:37:07 +0530 wrote > > >Dear Freind , > > >I have gone through your arguments , but sorry to say that your arguments > > >find no water . > > >You suggest me to quote section 23 of the RTI Act . The KIC has deceided > > >and the Appeal is before Karnataka High Court (by way of appeal under this > > >act WP under Article 226&227 of the constitution) > > >The RTI application was made under RTI Act , First Appeal was not heard > > >and Hence 2nd Appeal was made with KIC , KIC has Deceided the case > > >, Provided Compensation( sec 19.8.b--- ""Require the public authority to > > >compensate the complaiant for any loss or other detriment suffered"" ) > > >Hence every thing has been made under RTI Act 2005 and not under any law > > >, Do you mean state that we should argue that RTI Act 2005 overides RTI > > >Act 2005 . > > >We have also made our appeal in Confirmity of Gujarat High Court Orders > > >Reported in AIR2007 Gujarath 2003 , Reliance Industries ltd Vs Gujarat > > >State Information Commission & others . > > >The Matter is not that of Sec 22 &/or 23 but questioning of Sec 19.8.b > > >which has been quoted by me above . > > > > > >N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road > > >, Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. > > > > > >--- On Tue, 10/3/09, abhi987 wrote: > > > > > > > > >From: abhi987 > > >Subject: Re: [rti_india] BBMP Questions Karnataka Information Commissions > > >Power To Provide Compensation in Ka > > >To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > > >Cc: "Vikram Simha" , "Karnataka Intiative RTI" > > >Date: Tuesday, 10 March, 2009, 10:16 AM > > > > > > > > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear Vikram, > > > > > >The interim stay order passed by the Karnataka High Court is BAD IN LAW. > > > > > >Kindly bring this to the notice of the KHC by quoting sec. 23 of the RTI > > >Act, 2005 which has been passed in the Parliament. > > > > > >Also quote sec. 22 of the act which clearly states that in case of > > >conflict, RTI act will prevail over any other law for the time being in > > >force. > > > > > >I have copy - pasted below sec.23 and sec. 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 for > > >your immediate reference. > > > > > >Section 23 TITLED: > > > > > >BAR OF JURISDICTION OF COURTS > > > > > >Section 23. No court shall entertain any suit, application or other > > >proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order > > >shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this > > >Act. > > > > > >Sec 22 TITLED: > > > > > >ACT TO HAVE OVERRIDING EFFECT > > > > > >Sec 22. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding > > >anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, > > >1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument > > >having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. > > > > > >Warm Regards, > > > > > >On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 Vikram Simha wrote : > > >> > > >>Freinds , > > >>Activist From Our RTI Study Centre Mr Kaldas Reddy has today been served > > >>Karnataka High Court Interim Order Staying KIC Order No KIC 564COM2008 > > >>dt 31..10.2008 .in WP 2816/2009(GM- RES) . The Interim Order also Speaks > > >>There is a Pendency of Issue of Rule Nisi in the WP . > > >>The Matter Relates to KIC Providing Rs 1000/- as Compensation for > > >>Detreiments Suffered by Our Activist . > > >>The Original Matter Relates to Five Bus Shelters which were not > > >>constructed from MP Sri H T Sanglianas MPLADS Funds > > >>Details of the WP and Averments etc Follows . > > >>Our RTI Study Centre will ensure that Sri Kalidas reddy Gets an Very > > >>Senior Advocate to Fight the Case though the Matter is More of the Powers > > >>of the Information Commission To Provide Compensation Under Sec 19(8)(b) > > >>We May Require Assistance of all Activists Especially of Cases Where > > >>Compensation is Awarded and also Cases where the Gujarath High Court > > >>Order No AIR 2007 Gujarat 203 was adhered to Seek Reliefs of Information > > >>and Penalty & Compensation Sepratly > > >>N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte & Trustee RTI Study Centre #12 Sumeru Sir M N > > >>Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. > > >> > > >> > > >> Get your own website and domain for just Rs.1,999/year. * Go to > > >> http://in.business. yahoo..com/ > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to > > > http://messenger. yahoo.com/ invite/ > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger. > > yahoo.com/ invite/ > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger at > http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/?wm=n/ > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
