The interpretation of Section 19 (7) is not correctly identified. The said sub-section is confined to take decision on the admisibility of Section 19 (3) and 19 (6) of the TRI Act. No sub-section is applicable beyond the ambit of principal Section under any law and the decision of the Commission is in respect of admitting the appeal as a special case beyound prescribed time limit. You must take into account the explicit admissibility of Section 23 which totally bars the jurisdiction of the Courts. Further, Section 19 (9) of the RTI Act stipulates that the Commission shall give the notice of its decision, including any right to appeal to the complainant and the public authority. You have perhaps not noticed the mahdatory compliance of Section 25 by the CIC in respect of preparing a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act every year which shall be laid before each houses of Parliament. Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 25 explicitly states that the said report must contain the number of appeal referred to the CIC for review under Section 23 and the nature of appeals and the outcome of the appeals. You need to review your interpretation by identifying the scope of Section 19 (7) of the RTI Act. For your kind notice, the CIC is not preparing any Report under Section 25 but are more interested to eliminate Section 23 of the RTI Act. Earlier, the CIC attempted to amend Second Appeal Rules and Procedure by promulgating the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 under misinterpretation of Section 12 (4) of the RTI Act and substituted by Rule 23 of the CIC with following stipulations:- (1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. (2) An applicant or a complainant or a respondedmake an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of the decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. To avoid the hearing on review petition of the applicants. the CIC has amended the said Regulation on 20 October 2008, whereby Regulation 23 now states that the decision of the Commission shall be final that is no review is possible. The CIC authorities are misconcieved by treating the Commission as low making body instead of a information providing organisation. On Novembr 27, 2009, the Honble Delhi High Court has quashed the CIC (Management) Regulation in the case of Er. Sarabjit Roy v/s DDA with explicit remarks What was not done by the Rules cannot now enter through the backdoor of these illegal regulations.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 03:32:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015