Jump to content
rtiindia

Give opportunity of hearing during second appeal

Recommended Posts

rtiindia

This article has been posted at our #LawSegment . To read the full article follow this link: Give opportunity of hearing during second appeal and to subscribe to our daily mailer follow this link Join our free Right to Information Newsletter.

 

Central Information Commission in one of the decision opined that “as far as possible give the appellant including the third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act…Read more ›

 

The law segment is available here RTI INDIA - Invoking Your Rights

 

 

Read the complete article here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

These types of "suggestions" were given several times in several decisions and even ICs bat for such FAAs and assume their practical difficulties and even justify FAAs not permitting personal hearing in those decisions.

IC can not take any action against FAA for not permitting personal hearing. Almost all FAAs are aware that when requested FAA must provide hearing opportunity and still they are not interested, IC can not do anything except making such suggestions in their decisions regularly.

Some FAA's even decide that "Hearing appellant is not necessary" in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hearing during second appeal was mandatory.   There were no instances reported that a decision was taken without giving opportunity of hearing of second appeal .  However, IC may not postpone the once fixed hearing date due to practical problems involved.   Even when date is not postponed, written arguments, taking a decision on merits on records submitted by applicant must be considered and IC has to deliver a speaking order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k9959

Please iske bare me muze Hindi me information chahiye

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

AAP kisi dost jisko angreji achhe tareekha se pata hi, vo se poochna. Vo ye sab aap ko hindi me jaankari dega.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      On 14.03.2018 a complaint was filed under RTI Act,2005 with CIC under section 20(1), on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information despite the orders of FAA.
      During the hearing the respondent CPIO of PMO office submitted that information had been provided to complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2018 through speed post.
      Whereas, the information wasn't received by me and after having hearing submission of both the parties and persuing the records the commission directs the respondent to resend the letter dated 01.03.2018 alongwith the proof of its dispatch including tracking number to the complainant within two weeks. Furthermore my complaint have been disposed of.
      The CPIO of PMO has coplience the orders of CIC and now I received the information alongwith proof of dispatch on 05.07.2019.
      Since the copy of reply furnished by CPIO of PMO is unprincipled and immature, & very much fishy. Therefore, expert advice is needed on the following issues
      1. Can I still file my appeal against the reply of CPIO of PMO in the event of disposed of my complaint in CIC orders.
      For your convenience I am enclosing the CIC orders.
       
      .CIC Order on PMO CPIO
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No.285/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00653
       
      Dated, the 20th September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Pradipta Dutta, B-141 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110 019
      Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Income Tax (Legal & Research) (DIT), 3rd floor, Drumshaped Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002. DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
      The appellant had sought certain information in the form of queries, whichhave been duly responded by the CPIO and the appellate authority as well. Hehas however filed an appeal before the Commission against the reply of theappellate authority and prayed that the CPIO of DIT (L&R) be directed to furnishinformation with respect to his following queries:
      “Kindly inform why ITOs have been posted at DIT (L&R) even though there is no corresponding post in the same pay-scale at ITJSection, CBDT. What functions are the ITOs expected to discharge at DIT (L&R)?
      Kindly inform why ITOs at DIT (L&R) are being forced, under threat of disciplinary action, to perform the functions of an Asstt.Commissioner without being paid officiating pay.”
      Commission’s Decision:
       
      In its oft-repeated decisions, the Commission has advised the informationseekers that they ought not seek the views and comments of the CPIO on the questions asked by them. Yet, in the garb of seeking information mainly for redressal of their grievances, applications from requesters are filed. The CPIO’s in turn, have also ventured to answer them. Thus, the information seekers as providers have erred in interpreting the definition of information.
      A CPIO of any public authority is not expected to create and generate a fresh, an information because it has been sought by an appellant. The appellant is, therefore, advised to specify the required information, which may be provided, if it exists, in the form in which it is sought by him.
      The information sought relate to duties and responsibilities of ITOs deployed at different locations and the salary or compensation paid to them.Under Section 4(1) of the Act, all the public authorities are required to disclose such information as above. Had it been done by the respondent, the CPIO could have informed the applicant about the source where from he could have obtained the information. The need for filing application for information and this appeal could have thus been avoided. In pursuance of the principle of maximum disclosure, as u/s 4(1) of the Act, the CPIO is directed to disseminate the information so that in future, such applications are minimized.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the Decision from Download segment.


       

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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