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

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