Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Steno of ex IC MAA seems to have joined new CIC ANT ! (and strange are the new CICs ways)

Mr Sarbajit,

CIC ANT (or any other IC) going that extra mile ?

(or doing favours ?)

Is that some kind of black humour ?

CIC and ICs are supposed to only decide whether the information should have been given or not.

They are not there to do any favours to anyone - Appellants/PIOs/FAAs/PAs.

If they wanted to grantg "favours", they should have either drank the elixir of life and 

continued as Babus for ever OR should go become Swamiji's so that they can continue dispensing favours !

IC(SM) starts by talking about powers vested under Sec 18...and then directs someone else to conduct an enquiry. If that is not delegation (or abdication) of his powers then what is it ?

RTIwanted

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 14, 2010 3:04:08 PM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Steno of ex IC MAA seems to have joined new CIC ANT ! (and strange are the new CICs ways)

Dear Karira

After the deemed refusal by PIO, the applicant chose to pursue the
first appeal route u/s 19(1) INSTEAD OF the complaint route u/s
18(1)(c). . Evidently the FAA failed to pass an order despite the
mandate (shall) of 19(6) "An appeal under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt
of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of
forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be,
for reasons to be recorded in writing.".

Now as per the RTI Act, the only option is to use 19(3) to file a 2nd
appeal within 90 days from when FAA decision should have been made.
ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE. In this situation a
Complaint IS NOT MAINTAINABLE !!!
CIC(ANT) is going the extra mile to see that the original RTI does not
become infructous, for which he should be applauded rather than
ridiculed.

In IC(SM)'s decision, without knowing the specific allegations raised
by the Complainant, it would be inappropriate to speculate on what the
enquiry is all about. IC(SM) has not "delegated" HIS powers of
enquiry. He has DIRECTED the subordinate officer to enquire into the
allegations of the Complainant and provide information to the
applicant. And this is clearly distinguishable from the matter which
reached the Delhi High Court. 18(2) is clear that the CIC can
":initiate" an enquiry

Sarbajit

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM, C J Karira <cjkarira@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
> 1. The FAA has not passed an order within the time mandated under Sec 19(6).
>    Once the 30 + (additional) 15 days period is over, the FAAs role ends.
>    The process of 19(1) is over and done with and nothing is pending under
> sec 19(1).
>    The appellant then approached the Commission under Sec 18 (lets not
> hijack the main issue by starting a discussion whether sec 18 was the
> correct procedure to follow or should he have titled it as a second appeal).
>    So where is the question of parallel proceedings under Sec 18 and 19 ?
> 2. In IC SMs case, the issue is not whether he followed the best route to
> provide information, but whether he is in contempt of court by abdicating
> his powers and delegating them to the FAA to conduct an inquiry.
> Appellants / Complainants are not shuttle cocks to reach the CIC and then be
> shuttled back to the PIO/FAA and if dissatisfied, wait another 9 months for
> the Commission to pass appropriate orders.
> Karira
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Karira
>>
>> Yes it is open to an applicant to EITHER approach CIC u/s 18(1)(c) or
>> the FAA u/s 19 when a PIO does not reply in the prescribed period.
>>
>> Once an applicant chooses to file a First Appeal for deemed refusal,
>> the Complaint route is closed to him.  Hence please understand what
>> CIC(ANT) is saying - you cannot litigate before 2 bodies on the SAME
>> CAUSE OF ACTION.
>>
>> In IC(SM)'s appeal on your other thread. - SM has taken the most
>> logical approach to provide information to the applicant, WITHOUT
>> CLOSING applicant's right to file appeals, and also without letting go
>> of the penalty question.
>>
>> What would you suggest that IC(SM) could do better in such cases of
>> deemed refusal.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>
>