Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'natural justice'.
Found 3 results
Hearing by 1st Appellate Authority of RTI whether must - Delhi High Court issues Notice to DoPT and UPSC We have filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court [ W.P. © 3606/2014 ] raising following issues in relation to the non-hearing of Appellant by the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI :- Most of the 1st Appellate Authorities under RTI are not granting personal hearings to the Appellants despite their specific requests. 1st Appeals are being decided ex-party at the back of the Appellant by mere considering the reply/comments of the CPIO on the Appeal and even copies of these replies and comments are not provided to the Appellants. The 1st Appellate Authorities are ignoring large number of CIC decisions wherein it is held that when an Appellant request for hearing, the 1st Appellate Authority must grant hearing. Deciding of the Appeal without hearing is violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Das (AIR 2003 SC 2041), Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012 decided on 13-12-2012) Hon'ble Justice Manmohan of Delhi High Court on 29-05-2014 issued Notice to DoPT and UPSC in the aforesaid matter and passed the following order :- "Learned counsel for petitioner states that first appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are being disposed of without giving any hearing. He submits that the practice being followed by the Appellate Authorities is in violation of principles of natural justice. Issue notice." Copy of the High Court order dated 29-05-2014 is attached. With kind regards R.K. Jain Hearing by 1st Appellate Authority must - Delhi High Court issues Notice.docx
Alld H.C. did not entertain the request of PIO against whom penalty of Rs.25000/ was imposed by the SIC after giving reasonable opportunity. We have heard Sri S.K. Dwivedi for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi appears for the State Information Commission. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Information Commission dated 25.10.2012, by which penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed against him to be deposited in five instalments, for not appearing nor communicating any reply to the notice given by the Commission to the petitioner on 24.01.20122. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the required information was provided to the applicant on 20.11.2010 in response to his application dated 23.10.2010, within the prescribed time. The applicant was not satisfied on which he filed an appeal in which specific stand taken on behalf of the petitioner was that Sri Madan Lal, the Assistant Public Information Officer has appeared on his behalf, and that a writ petition is already pending with regard to demand of development charges from the applicant. 4. Learned Commissioner observed that neither the petitioner appeared in person nor submitted his reply to the notice on 24.1.2012. The petitioner has not annexed this reply, which may have been given. The petitioner has stated in para 12 of the writ petition that he has appeared before the Commission on 14.7.2011 and on the same day he has informed the Commission that he had given reply and complied with the order. The petitioner however has not stated whether he had appeared in response to the notice issued by the Commission on the date fixed in the notice dated 24.1.2012, nor has stated that he has given reply to the said notice. 5. The Commission has referred to the three questions on which information was sought by the applicant and the fourth question with regard to demand of development charges by a separate application. The petitioner has neither appeared in person in response to the notices issued by the Commission dated 24.01.2012, nor gave any reply on which the Commission has imposed penalty. 6. Even in this writ petition, the petitioner has not given any reason as to why he did not appear before the Commission or filed any reply in response to the notice dated 24.01.2012. The non-appearance and non submission of reply was sufficient to attract penalty imposed against him, which is not disproportionate to the negligence and disrespect shown to the statutory tribunal. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2013 nethra no relaxation in imposed penalty.pdf
Can somebody rationalize this decision ? Please read Constituition of India- Right to Equality14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. CIC_LS_A_2012_002725_M_105803.pdf