Jump to content
News Ticker
Guest pcbali

The District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar replies is strange against my appeal to him as FAA

Recommended Posts

Ketan Modi

Dear All,

O am uploading provisions of section 16 of the Contempt of Court Act for all to decide whether I am correct or not. The operative part is marked in red. Use it if you find it interesting as this is just one more tool to browbeat the system that I am trying to use and chances are I may succeed. Happy information seeking.

Ketan Modi

Section 16.doc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Very appropriate pieces of law, which even brings the commissions and tribunals in the line of courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Just if scrutiny of this section is done, it is on the court and Judicial bodies theirselves. Not on other individuals. Any how a very good information which will help a lot at appropriate juncture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

The Contempts of Courts Act , 1971

OPENING LINES .... an Act to define and limit the powers of certain Courts in punishing contempts of Courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

What Ketan Modi has attached, should have been put in the post itself so that is is ibstantly viisble to every body. However the same is reproduced below

 

Contempt of Court Act, 1971

 

Section 16

Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

i) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge, magistrate, or other person acting judicially shall be liable for the contempt of his own court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly,;

ii) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observations or remarks made by a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding a subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate or other person against the order or judgments of the subordinate court.

 

This words or other person acting judicially give a food for thought as to weather the Commissions & Tribunals are the other person acting judicially. If the persons who are required to comply start defying the Commissions and Tribunals, where the rule of law will exist!!

 

In my opinion, "other person acting Judicially" covers any such person acting Judicially.

 

However the procedure, as far as I know, is that a complaint (for contempt) should be made to the Commission. Commission will inquire (as the courts do) into the matter and if it is found out that prima-facie an contempt has been committed the matter is referred to the High Court, which is the appropriate authority to proceed with the contempt proceeding and punish the contemnor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

Plz see crux of some judgments :

http://www.498a.dreamhosters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=4075

 

The Courts and Tribunal are distinct from Information Commission .

Courts exercise power to try Contempt of Courts under the said The Contempt of Courts Act . The Tribunal [ CAT ] exercises this power under The Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules .

 

If an Information Commission disobeys specific Order of a Court [ High Court ] it would certainly be considered Contempt [ like an order / direction to finish hearing in 2 months ]

 

Powers [ penal / to get its orders enforced ] of Information Commission are contained only in s.20 of RTI Act and not beyond that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ketan Modi

Dear Bhanotsaab

The issue is if the presiding officer is sitting in contempt of his own court. In most cases FAAs sit in contempt of their own cases and they are other person acting judicially. In my opinion they can be tried for contempt. While I appreciate Karira Sir placing the Gujarat High Court Order on the issue. But the moot point is Gujarat High Court's word is not gospel's truth. Even courts do not enjoy powers to subvert what is stated in the statute and the statute is clear. One forceful argument and Gujarat High Court order can be set aside and the judge passing such an order may face sever strictures. It is the normal experience of the common man how court's behave. So my idea is only to enlighten the community about one more tool in our and to browbeat the system that has been browbeating us since 1947. Happy information seeking.

Ketan Modi

 

However the procedure, as far as I know, is that a complaint (for contempt) should be made to the Commission. Commission will inquire (as the courts do) into the matter and if it is found out that prima-facie an contempt has been committed the matter is referred to the High Court, which is the appropriate authority to proceed with the contempt proceeding and punish the contemnor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

http://www.infocommpunjab.com/htm/documents/2009/11.08.2011.doc

 

JUSTICE LOST IN controversy of section 19 and 18 of RTI Act. What a pity

 

 

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

(http://www.infocommpunjab.com)

 

Shri Parbodh Chander Bali,

16, Shiv Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar-143001.

-------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer

o/o the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. -------------Respondent.

 

CC No. 1348 of 2011

 

ORDER

 

The complainant in this case had moved an application on 20.3.2011 to the PIO/District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar seeking information on seven issues as per the detail given in his application. Primarily, he had made queries regarding implementation of provisions of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which casts a responsibility on every public authority to make certain suo-motto disclosures and maintain and publish details as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act ibid. The complainant in his RTI query wanted to know how record relating to Section 4 is up-dated on the website of the respondent-public authority. He has pointed out certain deficiencies in the maintenance and upkeep of the website. By drawing attention to these deficiencies, he wanted to know the reasons why these deficiencies were not being removed.

2. Notice was issued to the respondent-PIO who filed a written reply dated 30.5.2011 denying the allegation that the PIO did not furnish information within 30 days. It was submitted that the information-seeker had submitted a fee of only Rs.10/- in the shape of an IPO alongwith his application dated 20.3.2011. However under the Rules notified by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the minimum application fee is Rs.50/-. Therefore, the applicant was informed vide PIO’s letter No.2768 dated 5.4.2011 pointing out the deficiencies and advising him to deposit the minimum application fee. It was further submitted that e-mail IDs of judicial officers had already been intimated to the information-seeker in compliance with the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by this Commission in another case. Details of information on the website of the Sessions’ Division were also intimated to the information-seeker vide letter No.8151 dated 7.10.2010. Lastly the respondent pleaded that as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in CWP No.419/2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Verma vs. Goa State Information Commission, the Hon’ble Court has held that the definition of information cannot include within its fold, answers to questions “why”, which would be the same thing as asking the reasons or justification of a particular thing. The Court had held that PIO cannot be expected to communicate to citizens, the reasons why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of justification because the citizen makes a requisition about the information. Justifications are made within the domain of adjudication authority and cannot be clarified as information. Relying on the above arguments, the respondent submitted that the complaint is not maintainable.

4. The complainant, however, denied having received any letter from the respondent-PIO asking him to deposit application fee of Rs.50/-. Nevertheless the complainant pleaded that he had deposited the RTI fees of Rs.40/- through IPO on 17.6.2011 and that thereafter complete information ought to have been furnished to him. Since the information was not furnished, it was pleaded that a direction should be given to the respondent to furnish the same. The complainant further pleaded that discrepancies in suo-motto disclosure of the information should be got removed at the earliest.

5. I have heard the parties and gone through their record. The present case is by way of a complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Full Bench of this Commission in CC-461/2011 has held that under Section 18 of the Act, there is no provision to empower the commission to direct a PIO/public authority to supply information being asked for by a citizen. Similar view was held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad Education Society and another vs. Union of India and others (Special Civil Application NO.23305 of 2007 decided on 28.11.2007).

6. In view of this, the Commission is not competent to give direction to the respondent to furnish the information. The complainant will have to move via route provided under Section 19 of the Act ibid to get it.

7. The only issue left, to be gone into in the present complaint is whether there was a delay on the part of the PIO. In this regard, the complainant himself has admitted that he deposited the balance requisite fee of Rs.40/- on 17.6.2011. The respondent, thereafter, furnished the information, except the queries which pertains to “why” or “reasons”. The respondent has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Goa High Court and a similar view has also been taken by the Central Information Commission. Consequently, the queries of the information-seeker where he is seeking reasons as to why there are discrepancies in suo-motto disclosure need not be furnished. Information has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act ibid and it is only matters which fall within this definition, which are to be replied to or supplied as information by the respondent to the complainant.

8. Coming to Section 4, it is observed that every public authority was statutorily required within 120 days from the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to publish all relevant details listed out in section 4(1) of the Act. Failure to do so, would amount to a statutory breach. It would, therefore, be appropriate to give direction to the respondent to remove the deficiencies at the earliest and publish all the particulars which are required to be done under Section 4 of the Act ibid, without further delay

8. Before concluding, we may also place on record appreciation of the public spirited effort of the present complainant who has made the effort to move the Commission to bring public disclosure by the respondent in conformity with the provisions of law.

9. With the above observation, the complaint case is closed.

 

 

(R.I. Singh)

August 11, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner

p Punjab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Cong rates for the compliments the IC has given to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

Bali Sahib ,

CIC has patted your back for fighting for cause of the society , that's good . But certainly more was expected of the CIC for getting s.4 implemented in his jurisdiction . To be honest , I have always in my heart believed that Sh. RI Singh is perhaps one of the finer , more intelligent of the Commissioners in the country . But some of his decisions carry a streak of arbitrariness and really betray that belief . He is capable of doing much more to strengthen the Act . There are Commissioners whose intellectual worth does not inspire confidence . But I expect more from Sh. RI Singh because he is capable of it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Respected dr.s.malhotra, you have brought the crux, over which nothing can be said. I am not at all delighted on his comment on my cause, but I am more dejected on his Double Tongue, on one side he says that come after section 19, on other hand had also decided various issues which was then not desired at the same time to be commented on. He has not brought out the exact grounds for the appeal in HC even.

 

Simultaneously, he rejected my complaint in its issues, while still passing the bucks to technical issue of the stand taken by SIC full bench in previous matters. what a joke

 

Thanks smb, but I am very gloomy, instead of congratulating me, I would like you better think about the so called Chiefs of Institutions which are supposed to impart justice. These are more inclined to Corrupt Government Officials to keep them in winning situation instead of giving benefit to the General Public; they find every possible way to dispose off the matters without any relief in actual. I had not demanded any personal favour; it is desired for Poor People of India to collect the information of District Courts on their website. Still that could not be given by this Gentleman, the coming generations will not forgive them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

:mad:Further The CIC has made reference of Respondents Citation of Goa High Court.

He has not made any reference of My citation given to him in written rejoinder.

 

CIC /SG/A/2008/00347 + 00277/1554 in Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00347+00277 in matter of Mr. T. B. Dhorajiwala, v/s: Dr. Indu Saxena, that the RTI act does not state that queries must not be answered, nor does it stipulate that prefixes such as ‘why, what, when and whether’ cannot be used.

 

It is having more clarity and weigtage.

 

But who will ask the king that he is naked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

I wish the next lot is more intelligent , more committed .

Just laugh it off .

The wave that is running thru the country , the Statues of Stalin are destined to fall !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Lets us hope so, but it is obvious that how intelligent those would be, The Government is not making any Objective Criteria to select the best out of bests, then how do you hope.

 

This is country of saints and sages, (seen but not actually) as the time is said to be of Kalyuga.

 

Huns chunega dana dunka, Kauwa Motee Khaiyega

Ram Chander keh gaye siya se, ik din aisa ayega.

 

(the day has come when the swearing in ceremony of of two more so called best of bests have been done inspite of serious objections by RTI Community as well during a pending IPL. Ha Ram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barjinder

Dear Sir,

Please provide ur mail id.

 

 

Thanks & Regards

Barjinder Kumar

Amritsar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali
Dear Sir, Please provide ur mail id.

 

Dear Barjinder,

 

My id is as below

xxx@yyy.zzz - Deleted email id - posting against forum rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Dear Sir,

Please provide ur mail id.

 

 

Thanks & Regards

Barjinder Kumar

Amritsar

 

All discussions on this portal take place in the open forum, unless the two members want to send a PM to each other. You do not have the facility of PM as yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Normally, when RTI fee is not paid as per regulations, PIO ignores entire application, and as known to all applicant is not not eligible for any remedy under RTI Act. Even without Fee, PIO can as well furnish any information or not but applicant can not seek remedy through appeal procedure.

I vaguely remember that such application was filed in Delhi HC or Supreme Court and information was denied on grounds of security and other reasons. (Not specified under RTI Act

Even in APHC, PIO (Registrar, Judicial) forwards application to AA (Registrar General) to furnish information, a District Judge level PIO appoints Administrative officer as PIO (for mere attendance before SIC) and all these are leading others by example and showing obedience to Acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prasad.dhirendra

Unfortunte and absured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharadphadke

I sent an email to Registrar Generar of Bombay High Court where he is the Petitioner as it is Sue Motu Pitition asking his I wasnt to give one application in that kindly guide me the procedure.

 

There is no reply in three weeks!!! Date is fixed on 15/06/2013. This is in regards to safty of whestle blower.

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.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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