This debate is itself infructuous. IC MA, IC AT and various Asst. Registrars regularly take decisions and follow procedures which totally contravene various sections of the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007. If they themselves are throwing the Regulations out of the window, why waste time in debating them ? Name even one Asst. Registrar who whets Second Appeals / Complaints to see whether they pass muster. Name one IC in the CIC who goes through your complete Second Appeal / Complaint - including in one case not even reading the title page or the "Paryer or Relief sought" !
RTIwanted --- On Wed, 8/5/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote: From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: ACTIVE DEBATE #1 (CIC Management Regulations, 2007) To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 11:15 AM MOTION: "This House believes that the 'CIC Management Regulations, 2007' have no basis/force in law, and 'inter alia' contravene/dilute the parent "RTI Act 2005" and the duly notified Rules published by Central Government thereunder to the detriment of citizens" "FOR" the motion 1) Dr. Vishnu Mutthu 2) Sarbajit Roy 3) Veeresh Kumar AGAINST the motion None ARGUMENTS FOR: 1) By 12(1), the CIC is a BODY (and not any individual). The decisions must be collective decisions and not "an individual ill-advised action of Mr Habibullah and his cronies.". There is no proof/evidence that this impugned "Regulation" is the collective work of the "body" (as distinct from "an individual ill-advised action of Mr Habibullah and his cronies"). 2) For the "Regulations" to be "in force" there must be a NOTIFICATION in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE along with a HINDI version. There is no evidence/proof of this requirement being complied with. 3) Section 12(4) only gives power to the CIC which cannot be exercised by "any other Authority under the Act". Since Rule making power is with "Government" , CIC cannot exercise "Rule making" power. In Indian law there is no practical distinction between a "Rule" and a "Regulation" except that "Regulations" are generally "inferior" to "Rules". 4) CIC Regulations cannot contradict / dilute basic definitions / principles of the RTI Act (and the notified Rules) like has been done in cases of a) "prescribed" [regulation 2(i)] b) "transfer of applications" to "deemed PIOs" [regulation 2(e)(i)] c) "Presence of legal practitioners" allowed during hearings [regulation 2(n)] d) "Ex-parte decisions now explicitly permitted" [regulation 15(5)] e) "Benches" of CIC [regulation 13] Let the debate continue Sarbajit <footnotes> In the Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005:- "7(4) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner. " In the CIC's Regulations: - "2(n) Representative" means a person duly authorized by or on behalf of any of the parties to the proceedings or interveners and may include a Legal Practitioner. " http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ Decision_ 16082007_ 04.pdf "We take an adverse view of the absence of the ADM NW in the hearing before us. As per Rule 5 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005,the CPIO/APIO or such senior officer who decides the first Appeal or such officer against whom the complaint is made, as the case may be, is required to be present in the hearing. This may be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary Delhi who will issue directions to ensure compliance with the requirement of the RTI Act 2005." . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
