Yes. But I find that in cases involving denial of information inconvenient to the bureaucatic set up and desires of vested interests, the AA evade the appellant hoping that he will not be in that post when the case come up for hearing by
SIC
I have been seeking the hearing of AAs in all my first appeals. In last 30 months I had never got an opportunity for being heard except in one case where the District Collector was the AA. I was very confident that she will not be able to justify the denial. She appears to have pressure from high places. When she refuced the information with usual flimsy excuse and refuce hearing specifically sought, I had complained to the Chief Minister that the District Collector is neither solving the problem nor giving me an opportunity for being heard.
The Chief Minister ordered the District Collector to do the needful after hearing me. As anticipated, the DC was not able to justify the denial during the hearing. The issue was solved the way I had desired. Simultaneously I had made the second appeal also. The
SIC dismissed the second appeal stating all foolish things and ruling that the issue could be settled only in a court when my request was not for settlement of any issue but for a specific information falling under the Act. This was one of the stupidest orders. It is because he also appears to know that the information sought by me is a key stone and can expose innumerable false and irrelvant orders of his collegues and comrades at arms.
Irrespective of what we plead, in cases where the AA find the information sought is inconvenient and is not confident to face the appellant he will defenitely evade the hearing unless he is compelled to hear the appellant. I don't think that this problem could be solved without amendment to the Act