Jump to content
karira

How to tackle SIC/CIC remanding matters back to FAA and confusing between appeal/complaint

Recommended Posts

karira

Many members and guests of this portal have posted their bitter experiences with SICs and specially the CIC for:

 

1. Mixing up Complaint and Appeal - ie registering a complaint as an second appeal or vice-versa

2. Passing orders without conducting a hearing

3. Remanding matters back to the FAA by using standard copy/paste orders

 

Attached is a series of letters / orders in the case of Mr R K Jain v/s CESTAT which will guide and help members to combat such a situation.

 

Surprisingly these orders have been removed from CIC website - for obvious reasons.

 

1. CIC remanding back a second appeal to the FAA - this is one of those typical copy/paste orders of IC SS, IC RM, IC DS, IC VS and IC BS.

2. Application from appellant requesting CIC to withdraw this order of remanding back a Complaint

3. Copy of CIC order "withdrawing the earlier order"

4. CIC adjunct order after rehearing the Complaint imposing penalty on CPIO

 

========

 

From the above, it is clear that if one fights with the CIC on strong grounds, then one can stop such illegal orders being passed by the CIC / SIC.

 

 

Rectification Application to CIC against ex-party remand by IC 18 Feb 2012.pdf

CIC allowing R K Jain Rectification of ex parte remand of Complaint.PDF

CIC Order on Rehearing after R K Jain rectification Application.pdf

CIC order remanding back to FAA 09 Feb 2012.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Also attached to this post are:

 

1. Letter to CIC regarding illegal returning of second appeal to FAA.

(Many of us suffer from this issue and the draft will be useful to many members)

 

Most of the time this ven done by the IC but at the level of the Dpty Registrar.

 

2. General letter regarding rectification of mistake and withdrawal of CIC order.

 

Both will be useful to members/guests.

General-rectification of Mistake Application against CIC order.pdf

CIC-Illegal return of appeal & complaint by Dy. Registrar.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

Thanx Karira Sir, for your generous posts & attachments, that will help visitors immensely.

 

 

But, few petty points may be modified as raised by Hon'ble R.K. Jain(applicant/complainant).

 

1. para 8 of attachment#1, post#1:

 

"(8) That the order dated 9.2.2012 has been passed without any counter-statement filed by the CPIO or the Deemed CPIO as provided under Regulation 12 of CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 even though a copy of complaint was sent to them on 22.7.2011 by Speed Post (Annexure-B). This is a mistake apparent on the face of the record which also needs to be rectified."

 

The CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 is not operational now.

 

 

2. para 6, 7 of attachment #1, post#2 :

 

" (6)....in the case of the Namit Sharma versus Union of India - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012 decided on 13 September 2012, has held as under.......(7) In view of the above judicial pronouncements, CIC is a Judicial Tribunal having the trappings of a court and has to act independently and impartially following the principles of natural Justice and maintain judicial norms while deciding cases before it......"

 

In the order dated Sep 03 2013, for the review petition of the above mentioned case, Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that, Information Commissions do not exercise judicial powers and actually discharge administrative functions.

 

 

However, the attachments will be immensely helpful for the hapless complainants for the following type of irrational orders:

 

Not decided by AA

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000821_M_102230.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000672_M_101874.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900788_M_101794.pdf

 

 

Deemed refusal

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000914_M_102039.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf'>http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000895_M_94110.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001022_M_95612.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_C_2012_000902_M_93367.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2012_001684_M_96500.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2012_001685_M_96499.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_900133_BS_1683_M_101168.pdf

 

 

Bypassed AA

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000826_M_95747.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_000995_M_94234.pdf

 

Deemed refusal so to enquire by AA who dosn't have power to punish u/s20(1/2)

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001065_M_102394.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001094_M_102412.pdf

 

More Appeals

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2013_000850_M_110757.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2012_002706_M_110794.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2012_002694_M_110642.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2012_002700_M_110644.pdf

 

 

R K Mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Personally I feel that information has to be provided as quickly as possible what ever the process CIC elects. But unfortunately, after two years a complaint is being remanded to FAA after two years and with a direction to complainant to approach CIC, if he is not satisfied with FAA decision.

Another interesting thing during recent CIC transactions are they want FAA to conduct enquiry on their behalf and once again complainant is asked to file second appeal if not satisfied.

 

Apart from this, several appeals are not being diarised promptly, and several hearing notices are being received even without entry in diary or Status position in their sites.

 

As Hon.Karira has rightly pointed in several posts, Central Despatch still continue to evade proper system of receiving second appeals and many second appeals even handed personally missing and the same fate when two or more second appeals are sent in one envelope.

 

CIC fails to clarify as to whether they are implementing PGRMS guidelines for redressal of grievances and orally the concerned officials in whose name it was sent from DOPT replies that as CIC is a quasi judicial authority, PGRMS is not applicable. DOPT is silent on seeking such clarification.

 

Overall, CIC functioning needs lot of improvement and though I do not see any benefits on on line filing, now I realise that on line filing and sending it by post atleast ensures registration of appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I invite kind attention to

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/96105-remanding-second-appeals-gujarat-information-commission.html

 

Though legal option is open to a citizen, it is costly and time consuming. However, if ICs start pulling FAA for non-decision and start recommending departmental action for failure to perform quasi judicial duty clamped on him under an act, then over a period, things will start improving. I append some of such orders where FAA has been ordered to submit explanation for failing to decide first appeals:

 

CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated August 18, 2010

CIC/SG/C/2012/000123/17380 dated 15-02-2012

CIC/RM/A/2012/000155/LS dated 12-06-2013

 

Gujarat Info. Com has also warned or sought explanation of FAA for not deciding first appeal in few cases.

 

In first appeal I quote as under so that FAA may take note of some of them:

 

"I invite your kind attention to following decisions which are relevant to you as FAA:

 

 

CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010,

CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010

CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008

CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated 18-08- 2010

CIC/AT/A/2010/000451 dated, the 18-11- 2010 [sBI]

CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 dated 12-05-2011

CIC/AT/A/2007/01502 dated 24-10-2008 [LIC]

And CIC/WB/A/2009/001006, CIC/WB/A/2010/000186, 187, 317, 367SM

CIC/SM/A/2011/000181, 182, 333, 334, 516, 765 dated 18-04-2011 [supreme Court],

CIC/SM/C/2011/000867 dated 02-08-2011, CIC/SM/C/2011/000863 dated 02-08-2011 [Central Bank],

No.CIC/SM/C/2011/000873 dated 02-08-2011, CIC/AD/C/2011/001744 dated 13-01-2012 [Rly. board]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I believe that if RTI activists start auditing [say social audit] some of decisions of ICs [Central and States] and giving feedback to concerned IC and Chief IC and putting on this portal wherever there is serious error in decision making, over a period of time things should improve. Delay and dirt are our national diseases and hence it will take some time before thick skinned ICs get sensitized. This effort will be cost effective and time-effective as compared to writs in courts. I am doing it with my limited time resource.Please refer:

 

Social Audit:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/101711-social-audit-decisions-cic.html?highlight=social+audit

 

I also send by ordinary post my "audit report" to appellant [since there is no email ID of appellant in order of IC], who may not have expertise to know how his appeal has not been properly dealt with by IC.

 

Let us speak out against erroneous decisions. If any IC continuously issues defective orders, we may try his removal based on mental incapacity. We may or may not succeed but at least it will send ringing bells in IC space. At 60+ IC would not like to be defamed, since media may cover application of removal if submitted to President or Governor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

OK.....MAYBE some good news at last !

Just got information that in a hearing today the Delhi HC came down heavily on CIC and particularly IC SS for not "enquiring" into Complaints filed under Sec 18 of the RTI Act. Hearing got over after 1500 Hrs, so judgment still not uploaded on Delhi HC website.

Lets wait for the final judgment and hope for the best !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
santosh742598

I would like to get the judgement.

SS is giving horrible judgement which is upsetting me and undermining our all my effort. How much she have for completion of her tenure?

 

OK.....MAYBE some good news at last !

Just got information that in a hearing today the Delhi HC came down heavily on CIC and particularly IC SS for not "enquiring" into Complaints filed under Sec 18 of the RTI Act. Hearing got over after 1500 Hrs, so judgment still not uploaded on Delhi HC website.

Lets wait for the final judgment and hope for the best !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
How much she have for completion of her tenure?

 

The following are the dates on which various ICs in the CIC are likely to demit office.

 

IC DS: 19.12.2013

IC SS: 22.05.2014

IC RM: 22.08.2014

IC VS: 02.12.2015

IC BS: 16.02.2017

 

I am also eagerly waiting for these ICs to go.....hence keeping records of the last date of working of each one of them and counting days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Great Expectations.

It is not certain that coming ICs can do better,

Let us be optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

I endorse these views. However most ICs donot have such pios intentions.... they want to abdicate their responsibility by passing buck to FAA..... which should be dealt with...

 

Though legal option is open to a citizen, it is costly and time consuming. However, if ICs start pulling FAA for non-decision and start recommending departmental action for failure to perform quasi judicial duty clamped on him under an act, then over a period, things will start improving. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

It would be interesting to peruse extract from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court:

 

IN LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/s. M.K. GUPTA

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1993

 

. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Sir, one agrees with the feelings and facts expressed in such an excellent judgment, and even after stating such contents, subsequently no other public authorities has given respect due to the opinions given in judgment. The sentiments remained on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
    • jiwateshwar
      By jiwateshwar
      Is it possible to ask the C.P.I.O. to appoint an alternate or different FAA for filing the first appeal. Kindly see the attachments of post http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/5707-electronic-means-right-information-application.html
       
      In this case the FAA is himself involved in the case and has made unauthorized correspondence. As per section 19(1) the appeal can be laid before an officer senior in rank. Also it makes no sense in filing an appeal before a person who is himself involved in the act of denying me information.
       
      Plz advise

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy