There is no controversy. Sec 18 and 19 operate independently. Sec 18 is the "original" jurisdiction and Sec 19 is the "appellate" side.
If any bugger like IC(SG) corruptly continues to confuse the 2 stating "complainant has failed to use the effacacious remedy .. etc" , then file a vigilance complaint to Mr Habibullah and follow it up with a complaint to CVC against both of them if nothing happens. (PS: this advice was given to me by an IC who is an expert in this field) Sarbajit --- In [email protected], C K Jam <rtiwan...@...> wrote: > > Dear Mr Vikram,You are absolutely correct. > The same view was very lucidly explained by the Allahabad High > Court:http://www.rtiindia.info/downloads/p13_sectionid/2/p13_fileid/25 But, > as usual, who will "bell the cat" in the SIC/CIC ?RTIwanted > --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Vikram Simha <vikramsimh...@...> wrote: > > From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimh...@...> > > > Since the Act allows the Complaint Mechanism in six circumstances , the > interpretation that every Application which qualifies for the six > circumstances do pass through the FAA . > > To my mind Sec 18(1) has an very siginificant relevance and hence the Confers > Powers to the Information Commission itself directly and not the FAA
