If called by CIC would the applicant get Reimbursement of TA etc

[Abhinav Bohare]

Members and Experts,

In a thread , one of our Jr Member has raised an Imp issue (FAQ) that if CIC or any other RTI Official calls or summons any applicant to the attend any hearing etc ....Is that called or summoned APPLICANt Reimbursed TA or DA i.e Travel Allowance or expenses incurred...

Plz do reply to this imp FAQ or RTI Query

After all Money matterssss Freinds

[Abhinav Bohare]

Mpai, Karira, Ganpat, Kushal Sir and all other respected member ....I am expecting an reply ....

Dear R/ Mpai, Kushal Sir, Karira, Ganpat....

Pl Reply .....

I am my self puzzled seraching the answer to this in ACT and FAQ

[Debashis Basu]

Dear Abhinav

I do join you to request them for a reply.

I have started a thread to debate the issue whether a token or near actual and easily justifiable compensation amount (u/s 19 (8) (b) ) should be mention under "Prayer & Relief Sought" and the justification of such claim in " Grounds...." portion of the standard appeal format.

[Abhinav Bohare]

Hi Basu

I am sure we would find the answer

For me HALF KNOWLEDGE In dangerous

Hope all of us get a perfect one

And I appreciate you joined the thread

Now we are 11 i.e. 1+1=11

[colnrkurup]

Though I am not a legal expert, let me try to put across my views: The powers given to CIC in Section 18(3)(a) viz., "summoning and enforcing the attendence of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things ", to my mind ,become applicable to Respondents viz., SPIO/AA in this case or attendence of any witness the attendance of whom CIC deemed necessary. Filing an application under RTI Act and its appeals does not at any stage compel an applicant to attend the hearing or even answer letter of the CIC. In such cases where the applicant does not attend when called for or does not even reply, CIC the maximum injury that can be inflicted on an appellant is dismissal of his appeal of an ex-partee decision. No one can do any sort of compulsion to an appellant in RTI case. In civil cases also the Appellant is not summoned by the court In the case of civil courts the date of hearings are fixed and when the appellant abstain on the date of hearing his petetion is dismissed or decided expartee. The position of Respondent or a witness is different. They can be compelled to attend. In normal cases when the court summon a witness the witness is entitled for certain "Batha" from the court because he is attending the hearing at the instance of the court for the court/Strate and not for himself. I think the same provision is applicable in RTI Cases also. The civil court does not summon the appellant and the CIC also cannot summon the appellant. So, under the RTI Act or under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, there is no provision or requirement of summoning an appellant. I think that the word " persons " used in Section 18(3)(a) does not imply the Appellant as there is no requirement of summoning an appellant at any stage. Naturally the appellant cannot demand or entitled for the expenses incurred by him as he is attending the hearing for his own interest only and not for the interest of the state.

[Abhinav Bohare]

May be correct ?

As even I opine that One may get compensations if any , but not Travel Allownaces etc to attend any RTI hearing..

But the only point that is haunting is "IF called or summoned by CIC or any RTI office itself"...Thn What ?

Let await further responses

[colnrkurup]

I think Ishould come out more openly. According to me, the AA or CIC has absolutely no powers to summon an Appellant. The " person" referred to in Section 18(3)(A) and CPC pertain to Respondents/Defendants and other witness only.The Appellant is at liberty to ignore such orders or summons. The maximum damage theCIC can do is to dismiss the Appeal or decide the case ex-paree. It become Appellants interest to defend his case. If he want to defend he has to attend. No one will compell him to atend or file an application. The choice is purely his own. If he is atending the hearing for his own benefit and choice why should the state pay him ?There isno provision in any of the laws where the Appellant is paidd his expenses. Of cour ce Government servants travelling on duty is different.

[mpai]

Originally Posted by colnrkurup

If he want to defend he has to attend. No one will compell him to atend or file an application. The choice is purely his own. If he is atending the hearing for his own benefit and choice why should the state pay him ?There isno provision in any of the laws where the Appellant is paidd his expenses. Of cour ce Government servants travelling on duty is different.

Your are absolutely right Col Kurup. In most cases, folks tend to forget that it the information that one is seeking and not fight with the Public Authority. I feel its far better to get information at the application stage itself. If not, the 1st Appeal should be filed. As far as possible, most communications should be carried out with the AA (with a cc to the PIO) before going in for the 2nd Appeal. One thing I like about 1st Appeals is that, this is one place where one can get the maximum information.

I really don't prefer to file a 2nd Appeal and am compelled to do so, only if the need for the information is very important.

Hope you folks get the point. Priority should be in gaining information and streamlining the process, instead of fighting it out.

Manoj

[Abhinav Bohare]

So we have the answer or we have some more questions now....

Manoj have given us a good hint of how to sail but to swim and get tired...Thats why I always feel Law is always above truth...

Colonel was absolutely correct in coming out of the bunker and firing right at the target....

And I am sure the person looking for the reply have the answer unlike TV discussion conclusions...

Thanks every one

[mpai]

Here is a gist on CIC decisions, where the appellants were compensated.

Rs.5,000 to Shri Awadhesh Singh, Village Ranipur Colliery, P.O. Narayanpur, Dist.Purulia by Shri Deepak Chakravarti, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Limited 02032007_01 dtd.03.07.07 F.No.CIC/AT/C/2006/00117 Dated, the 2nd March, 2007

Shri Ajay Jhuria, Mumbai to and from Mumbai to Delhi 2nd AC train fact and DA of Rs.500/- No.CIC/OK/A/2006/000303 Dated: 3 May 2007

Respondents were directed to compensate him by paying Rs.10,000/- which will cover his journey from Mumbai to Delhi by air (this is essential as pointed out by the Appellant that Railway reservations are practically impossible to get during this peak season) and towards D.A for his stay in Delhi. 1 Shri Joy Manglani, Mumbai-400053 No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00505 Dated: 3 May 2007

A total of Rs.130/- (Rupees one hundred and thirty) shall be remitted to the applicant as compensation by the PIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order Dr. Reeta Jayasankar of Kochi F.No.CIC/AT/C/2006/00052 Dated, the 4th September, 2006

Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, a large sun (The total amount) thus payable to the complainant should be determined on the basis of the date of joining of the third and last candidate in the physically handicapped category till December 21, 2006, Decision No.519/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00781 Dated, the 6th February, 2007


SHri Girish Mittal, Mumbai v/s Regional Passport Office, Mumbai. The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondents to compensate the Appellant by a refund of Rs.300/ No.CIC/OK/C/2006/00146 Dated: 7 February 2007

More later

Manoj

[colnrkurup]

May I project some more views of mine on the subject of compensation, to enable to draw more clarifications from the fertile brains of this Forum ? We should not mix up Section 19(8)(b)RTIAct- " require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered " with 18(3)(a) - " summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to provide the documents or things " The cases Mr.Mpai has quotted appears falling under Section 19(8)(b). There is no ambiguity on this order except its implementation. There is no Head of Account nor any budgetary allotment nor any other financial provision enabling the PA to implement this orders. I am curious to know any incidence where the PA has implemented this orders and how it is done. I had already submitted my views on CIC's powers on enforcing attendance. Section 18(3)(a) amplified that CIC's powers is to enforce attendence ... to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things. CIC cannot compel or enforce attendenhce of the Appellant, as he cannot compel him to give oral or written evidence and produce documents or things against his wishes in civil cases . The CIC has to decide the case on the basis of documnts or things he has produced. If it is not adequate, it is Appellant's fate. His case may be dismissed or decided expartee. When the CIC cannot compel the attendence of Appellant he is not entitled for any compensation or "batha". I think that under no circumstances an ppellant can claim "Batha" orTA/DA nor the CIC or any court of law has powers to grant it to Appellant unless in cerain extraordinary circumstances he is made to defend from escaping from defamation or from allegation of criminal offences or hebecome defendent etc etc (This aspect is very complicated and hencenot going further).. In the case of Respondent or any witnessess, the Court or CIC who is delegated the powers under CPC can enforce attendence in the interest of State. Respondent being government servants travelling on duty are entitled forTA/DA which they are claiming. In other civil cases before other courts also government servants attending the court when summoned claim TA/DA. In case other witness whose attendence the court find essential in the interest of justice such witnessess are made to attend in the interest of state they have to be paid and are being paid TA/DA by the court. I think that the courts have budgtary provision also. This is my vintage mindset and request the learned Advocates or other knowledgeable members of this Forum to bring out mistakes if any in my views expressed .