The new-gained placebo of its pseudo popularity gained by confrontating with the Kerala Legislature , SIC, Kerala is marching fast to a goal of perfect nincompoopery. Some of the recent orders of SIC, Kerala highlighted below speak volumes.
1. Afrer suppressing the complaints/second appeals pertaining to request for information likely to exposs corruption or maladministration of his old comrades at arms for more than 3 years or till the culprits have retired they are abruptly dismissed collectively AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (giving the appellant absolutely no chance of being heard).in utter violation of his own Rules - Rule No.7 of Kerala SIC (Procedure for Appeal)Rules 2006. In certain cases the order is silent of senting any notice even to the respondent or AA.for this 3 year period(Cases NosCP No.146 & 147/2007/SIC on file No.4767/SIC-Gen2/2006 & 502/SIC-Gen2/2007)dismissed on 12-1-2010 refers. 2. The SIC, Kerala had the audacity to order in his judgement dismissing 5 complaints collectively AUDI ALTERM PARTEM on 3-2-2010 claiming that " Section 18(3) of the RTI Act would say that with regard to administration and practical procedural aspects, the SIC is vesed with the powers of Civil Court and the CPC 1908 is applicable in all cases. He specificaly claims that the SIC can exercise powers under Section 11 CPC (Res judicata) quotting that "No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit etc....." It is a pity that the SIC could not grasp 18(3) of the Act which state that the SICshall while inquiring into any matter under this section (Section 18), have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the CPC 1908 in respect of following matters, viz., (a) summoning... (b)requiring the discovedry and inspection....... (c)receiving evidence on affidavit (d) requisitioning any public record or copies ....... (e)issuing summons for examination.......... (c) any other matter which may be prescribed ( viz., by an authority compeent to prescribed) 3.. According to him he need consider only question of public importance. He refuce to understand at least the preamble of that RTI Act which lays down " Now, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to CITYZENS who desire to have it." (It does not use the word "public" but "cityzen"
