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.
".. 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.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> 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'
>
>
> **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'
>
> *
>
> - *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'
> 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@.
>
> >
> >
> > 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:* rti_india@yahoogrou
> > *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
>
No comments:
Post a Comment