Dear S Roy
 
Thanks for the info, in some departments PIO does not come,for 1st hearing  and 
even at 2nd appeal here in mumbai the SIC states that PIO or even the applicant 
need not come and they will pass orders according to merits of the case.
 
Kind regards
Leslie Almeida
 
 


--- On Thu, 7/9/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote:


From: sroy1947 <[email protected]>
Subject: [rti_india] Re: My experience at RTI 1st appeal Police
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 8:35 AM








The issue is not about Godfathers or being given individual hearings. Rather it 
is about the PIO having to PROVE his denial of information at every appellate 
stage. The necessity of personal hearing is only one of the ingredients of the 
evidentiary process.

Appeals are formal processes and well regulated by rules of procedure.
The process starts with the PIO having to submit a written counter (duly 
verified) opposing the grounds of the appeal. The Appellant may thereafter 
further rebut this counter. Once the written pleadings are complete any further 
oral arguments are to be strictly limited to clarifications / interpretations 
of the material on record. If any oral submissions are made, it is mandatory 
for a written statement of the same to be filed THE SAME DAY (or the next day 
with the leave of the court). It is also trite that copies of all documents 
filed must be available to all parties. It is necessary that the appellant keep 
placing material on the record (duly acknowledged/ served) pointing out 
deficiencies in the procedurals. Public servants are only scared of this - 
deviation from rules / procedures is what fucks them in the end - and they know 
this very well.

The adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the pleadings/material record. 
Every decision of the adjudicating officer must be sufficiently reasoned for a 
subsequent appeal. Routine decisions like "I find merit in the PIO's 
contentions and uphold the non-disclosure of information" must be opposed.

I strongly advise VIGILANCE complaint to be made against first appellate 
authorities who do not follow the procedural mandatories listed above. This can 
be done separately from (and in addition to) the 2nd appeal process and will 
culminate before a Lok Ayukta.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000@ ...> wrote:
>
> 
> MY EXPERIENCE AT RTI 1ST APPEAL POLICE
> 
> Citizens staying from Bandra west to Jogeswari west mumbai have to file 1st 
> appeal to Assistant Police commissioner . Police Commissioners office (west 
> division ) carter road Bandra west Mumbai 400050 with two copies of 
> application one of which goes to the local police station. for appeals the 
> citizens are called for hearing at DCP’s office Bandra Police station
> I went for the said 1st appeal hearing, where there was a many citizens from 
> Bandra to Jogeshwari, the DCP did not conduct hearings but instead a IPS 
> officer above DCP’s office was to take the hearings, PIO as there is only 
> one from Bandra to Jogeshwari was present (smart Guy ) along with one Police 
> PSI of local Police station, the PSI Police officers were smartly dressed 
> with their caps on, all theses Police officers were summoned
> Inside the chambers of the IPS officer and for 15 minutes were being briefed 
> by the 1st appellate authority, after which they all came out, A Police 
> inspector at Bandra Police station then came out and told all the applicants 
> to Go home, Appellate authority should give individual hearing to the 
> applicant as per the RTI act I protested that personal hearing of individual 
> citizens were not held as, and that I would like to meet the 1st appealant 
> authorities, I was granted permission, I asked the 1st appeal authority why 
> personal hearing were not held and all applicants were asked to go away, he 
> gave some vague answer, this is against the spirit of the RTI act, they do so 
> because they have their God Father SIC who will never give adverse orders 
> against them, 
> 
> Leslie Almeida
>

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to