Friday, April 20, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC SM allows CPIO of SC escape penal provisions.

There is a difference

The SC says that reply / appeal order was sent to applicant.
Applicant says it was not received.
Burden of proof is cast on CPIO. 19(5)


On 4/19/12, Manoj Pai <> wrote:
> One Shri Shailesh had requested for certain information from the CPIO of
> Supreme Court of India. It is evident from the decision that applicant had
> received no response from the CPIO or FAA.
> However, the CIC SM accepted the contention of the CPIO that the information
> was provided. Looking into the grounds, the appellant should have been given
> benefit of doubt. Further, as Sarbajit Roy, CJ Karira, Vihar Durve, Col
> Kurup and many others in this list would like to sing about the General
> Clauses Act, the CIC has not asked the CPIO to submit any proof of the
> dispatch of information / FAA order.
> Kindly go through the entire order, without debating the plausible
> deniability in the decision.
> Section 20 makes it clear that the burden of proof lies on the CPIO and not
> the applicant. However, I am deeply pained to read several other decisions,
> where the applicants keeps shouting hoarse of having sent his RTI
> application by Speed Post / Regd. AD, the ICs / CICs accept the contention
> of the CPIO of not having received the RTI Application.
> Maybe some of our younger members in this list, might like to prepare a
> bench mark of such decisions, where the benefit of doubts have been given to
> the CPIOs.
> Best wishes
> Manoj Pai
> (Off Topic: Is anybody watching "Raising the Bar" on weekend nights on Zee
> Cafe)

No comments:

Post a Comment