colnrkurup,
I do not agree with you.
I am not a lawyer, nor a expert in jurisprudence but read the act like a common man. One should go by what is written in the main Act and the rules which are laid down for the operation of the Act.
"
Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be.........." does not mean that any provision from any other section can be read and interpreted as a time limit for Sec 18.
If your argument is that there has to be a time limit for everything concerned with judicial proceedings, then there should be a time limit for deciding the Second Appeal also.
How come Sec 19(6) puts a time limit for deciding First Appeal (30 or max 45 days) but there is no time limit for deciding Second Appeal ? What happened to jurisprudence, in this instance ?
If you see Sec 11(v) of the
CIC (Management) Regulations 2007:
(v) The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petition —
(a) if it is time-barred; or
(b) if it is otherwise inadmissible; or
(c) if it is not in accordance with these Regulations.
Provided that no such appeal or complaint petition shall be rejected
by the Registry unless the concerned appellant or the complainant
is given an opportunity of being heard.
The decision of the Registrar in regard to the issue of
maintainability of an appeal or a complaint shall be final.
I think someone in the
CIC registry is having a look at all the appeals/complaints and filtering them out at the initial stage. In these two cases they have just got confused between Second Appeal procedure and Complaint procedure. The order has been drafted and IC has also signed it.
Please also note that there is no mention in the two orders, if the Registrar gave the complainants a opportunity of being heard.
As a final argument, please see the decision of CIC W Habbibullah:
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30032007_03.pdf
It was open to Shri J.K. Aggarwal to approach the PIO or
this Commission through an application for review or complaint u/s18 in which case no time bar would have applied.