In 2010 I had done a quick study of the decisions of
the CIC and APSIC.
The chances of getting a favourable order increase
dramatically when the appellant is present. If I recall
correctly, my study showed that success rate
(ie disclosure of information) is about 65% when a appellant
is present as against 25% when the appellant is not present.
Personal presence (ie physical presence in the the ICs chamber)
is also much better than appearing through Video Conferencing.
In fact, if you go through the Rajasthan SIC website, there are
hundreds of orders simply saying "appellant did not appear...
it seems he is satisfied with the information provided....
appeal is closed" - or something to that effect.
RTIwanted
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:22 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Illogical Decision of Sushma Singh
Dear Girish
There is an unexplained 1 year delay between July 2010 and July 2011.
Also the appellant is at fault for not appearing and prosecuting his
matter.
The only reason ICs get away with this is because of poor quality
petitioners.
Sarbajit
On Jul 3, 2:59 pm, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Attached is (another) illogical decision of Sushma Singh...
>
> There is no concept of declassification of documents recognised in RTI Act
> and any delay due to the same is not acceptable..
>
> However, in the attached she has defended the same and refused to take
> cognizance of delay due to the same.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> CIC_SS_A_2012_000644_M_FCRA No Penalty.pdf
> 283KViewDownload
No comments:
Post a Comment