Dear Sh.Sarbajit Royji,
In my case ,IC(PB) revised her decision http://cic.gov.
On this group message 1183,1203,1206,
With regards
Manoj K.Kamra
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> 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@> 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:* 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