Dear Sh.Sarbajit Royji, In my case ,IC(PB) revised her decision http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-11092008-28.pdf
On this group message 1183,1203,1206,1212,1213,1217,1219,1221, rejection of appeal without conducting hearing was discussed in detail AND VERY USEFUL SUGGESTIONS OFFERED.So I sent Email for review of decision which was accepted and REVERSED. With regards Manoj K.Kamra --- In [email protected], "sarbajitr" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sunil, > > I am afraid that you have not comprehended 12(4) correctly. This clause only > deals with the management of the CIC's INTERNAL affairs. It has no > application to disposal of complaints / appeals which are governed by > different sections of the Act and also the DoPT notified CIC Appeal Procedure > Rules. Also, acknowledging poor drafting of the Act the CIC / Courts now > treat the terms "Appeal", "Complaint" interchangeably wherever possible. > > For Mr Suresh Nangia, > wrt "There has been no known case of an order passed by Information > Commissioner having been reviewed later.", there are many instances of CIC > orders being reviewed later. > {http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-21012010-01.pdf} > ".. or by seeking a review by the Commission itself, which although it has no > general power of review, is like any judicial or quasi-judicial authority > authorized to review its decision on grounds of error of law or fact." > Also, http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Order_Dtd_03042006_4.pdf > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@> wrote: > > > > Dear Amitabh Thakur, > > > > With reference to your queries: > > > > 1. *Powers of **Chief Information Commissioner vis-a-vis Information > > Commissioner. > > > > 2. Provisions to Appeal under the RTI Act or Challenge **in the High > > Court**, > > an Information Commissioner's decision. > > > > > > **1. Powers of Central/ State **Chief Information Commissioner vis-a-vis > > Central / State Information Commissioner:* > > > > Sec. 12(4) & 15(4) of the RTI Act are relevant to your query, both the > > sections are verbatim, except for the difference in word Central / State. I > > have copy pasted sec. 12(4) below for your reference- > > * > > Quote:* > > > > Sec. 12(4) T*he general superintendence, direction and management of the > > affairs of the Central Information Commission* shall vest in the Chief > > Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information > > Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and > > things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission > > autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority > > under this Act. > > > > *Unquote* > > > > *Hence the Chief Information Commissioner has Administrative but not > > Quasi-Judicial superintendence over the Information Commissioners* > > * > > 2.* *Provisions to Appeal under the RTI Act or Challenge **in the High Court > > ** an Information Commissioner's decision: > > > > * > > > > - *Appeal under the RTI Act:* > > > > > > Sec. 19(9) read along with 19(10) may be relevant to your query. I have copy > > / pasted them below for your reference - * > > > > Quote: > > > > *(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as > > the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, *including any right of > > appeal,* to the complainant and the public authority. > > > > (10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as > > the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure > > as may be prescribed. > > > > *Unquote > > > > It is pertinent to note here that the Complainant and the Public Authority > > shall be notified the right of appeal and not the Appellant. > > > > * > > > > - *Challenge in the High Court:* > > > > > > An information Commissioner's decision can be challenged in the respective > > High Court, depending upon the territorial jurisdiction. Article 226 and 227 > > of the Constitution of India are the relevant provisions. > > > > Sec. 23 of the RTI Act titled *"Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts" *has been > > overruled by the High Court, because it amounted to indirect amendment of > > the Article 227 of the Constitution of India titled *"Power of > > superintendence over all courts by the High Court" > > * > > Constitution of India cannot be amended implicitly or indirectly, but has to > > be amended directly by explicitly invoking Article 368 of the Constitution > > of India in a Bill, and thereafter duly following the procedure laid down > > therein. > > > > Attorney-General of India can explain this anomaly better, because under > > Article 76(2) he/she is the adviser to the Government of India, and must > > have gone through the Bill, Right to Information, before it was tabled in > > the Parliament and enacted as Right to Information Act, 2005. > > > > Warm Regards, > > > > Sunil.* > > ** > > > > * > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:37 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Sarbajit, > > > > > > I was eagerly waiting for that Delhi HC judgment - to use it in the AP HC, > > > in one of my cases against the APSIC. > > > > > > But alas, have to wait till October 2010. > > > > > > RTIwanted > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* sarbajitr <sroy1947@> > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > *Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 5:18:17 PM > > > *Subject:* [rti_india] Re: RTI appeal > > > > > > > > > This decision was expected in my case in Delhi High Court, unfortunately > > > Mr > > > Habibullah is well known to the concerned Judge and the order has been > > > obviously reserved till Mr Habibullah demits his office - as a personal > > > favour to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - > > Aristotle > > >
