Though the CIC with its vast jrusidction and frequent interaction with different High Courts tend to behave, the SICs with no 'mai baps' with confined jurisdiction and lack of any control are crossing all limits. Given below are extracts from Orders dated 3.2.2010 of the Division Bench of SIC, Kerala.
1. With stroke of one order he has dismissed my 5 second appeals some of them pending since 2 years pertaining to different Respondents. Audi Alteram Partem (without giving the appellant an opportunity for being heard).finding nothing wrong in ordering that "Personal hearinbg of the parties are dispensed with" It has no concern to the fundamental principle of justice that party against whom a judgment or order is to operate should have an opportunity for being heard and breach of this rule affects the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal which passess the orders
2, The SIC's ibid order read that "section 18(3) of the RTI Act would say that with regards to administration and practical procedure aspects, the CIC and SICs are vested with the powers of a Civil Court and The CPC 1908 is applicable in all cases". The order continues claiming that " Sectrion 11 (Resjudicata) prohibits subsequent trial, admission and adjudication of same matter once decided by a competent Forum. It is Principle of Res judicata. " No court shall try any suit or issue......................and has been heard and finally decided
The pity is that the SIC, a Retired Chief Secretary of Kerala could not grasp Section 18(3) RTI Act where it is specifically stated that the only limitted portions of the CPC (given as (a) to (f) therein is applicable. Section 11 of CPC - Resjudicata is not at all applicable. ie., an information cannot be denied under Section 11 CPC. This is more so when the High Court of Delhi in their judgment of 30-11-2009 unequivocally declared that "Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. The PIO or AA cannot add and introduce new reasons or grounds for rejecting/ furnishing of information." But according to SIC, Kerala, the information can be refused under Secion 11 (Resjudicata) of CPC
Another pitty is that his orders quote Section 11 CPC verbattum insisting that it can be done after the case has been heard, but he dismissess it without giving the appellant an opportunity for being heard.
Like many other orders of SIC, Kerala the list of such foolishnes are in abundance in this orders also. I request vigilent cityzens to voice against such atrocities of SICs vis-a-vis cityzen's helplessness ( of cource one can approach High court incuring enormous expenses, time and effort,). The requirement is to have a Central Agency who can stop such SICs from crossing their limit to protect the corupt to protect some of the bureaucrates from getting their corruption expossed.. .
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment