appellant presence during 1st or 2nd Appeal not nessessary.

[kushal]

Deciding appeal weather the Appellant is required to be compulsorily present during hearing, the following was decided:

The Central Information Commission Appeal Procedure Rules 2005 are clear that an appellant may be present in person or through his duly authorized representative, or may opt not to be present in appeal before the Commission. Such a principle will apply mutatis mutandis to any appeal before any lower authority under the Right to Information Act.

See the attached decision.

[brijeshbhatt]

This decision will certainly benifit lots of Appellants.

[mpai]

Originally Posted by brijeshbhatt

This decision will certainly benifit lots of Appellants.

Partly yes. It would be better if the applicant is a resident of Delhi, to make it necessary to attend the CIC Hearings. If out station applicants cannot attend, try to make yourself available either through video conference or at least on the telephone.

At times, the CIC needs some clarifications from the Applicant to help them take decisions.

Best wishes

[wehelp]

yes the CIC should leave the choice of personal presence to the applicant unless it is necessary it for evidence/argument. The applicant has to travel all the way from his home to delhi just to sit in the first row

[wehelp]

yes the CIC should leave the choice of personal presence to the applicant unless it is necessary for evidence/argument. The applicant has to travel all the way from his home to delhi just to sit in the first row

[wehelp]

are these rules application to andhra pradesh do I need to inform the SIC before that I will not be appear personally for hearing

[colnrkurup]

I think we still fail to grasp the distinquishing featurs of RTI Act and differentiate as to where it varie from all other enactments. Section 19(5) leave no element of doubt. It is only the Information Commisioners and some of us who are unable to grasp the esence cry about it. SIC, Kerala has agreed that attendance of Appellant is not compulsory and he has issued orders supporting my view.

The Architect of the RTI Act has given us so much loose rope; but we fail to make use of it. There is a basic provision of law "Audi alteram partam" ie., Giving an agrieved party an opportunity for being heard. In the case of PIOs the commissions invariably serve them notices to be present before awarding the penalty. My interpretation is that in cases of decision against the applicant, the Commission has to give an opportunity to the applicant for being heard. But it is not compulsory for the applicant to attend the hearing. It is upto the applicant. As for as the commission is concerned he has no choice when he refuce the information.

If the applicant grasp these provisions the choice to attend or not to attend the hearing is purely on him. Non-attendance by the applicant for hearing does not matter so long as he has expressed his views in his appeal and he has nothing more to add.

[karira]

Originally Posted by wehelp

are these rules application to andhra pradesh do I need to inform the SIC before that I will not be appear personally for hearing

Please see the following article in the Guide Segment of this portal:

http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/centre...l-websites-21/

Just follow the GO No. 66 issued by the AP Government whose link is available in the above mentioned article.

[opsharma]

Agree with clarifications and interpretations at post 7. Section 19 (5) is absolutely precise "the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer,as the case may be , who denied the request." It is the PIO who need to be present and not the applicant ,unless the application is perceived to be totally illogical , messed up and possibly irrelevant.

[opsharma]

Had to continue to extra post because Edit function was not available after submit.

The CICs/SICs ,having heard and decided thousands of appeals by now ,are in a clear position to decide where PIOs have erred and denied information . There could be instances of miscarriage of justice at the highest level , but that is attributable to be in good faith

[sidmis]

Agreed that personal presence at the Appeal hearings is not mandatory.

Conversely can we apply the Audi alteram partem principle to the first appeal stage and force a personal hearing in that stage?

Is there any breach of above principle occurs when the First Appellate Authority do not allow personal hearing to the appellant and decides in his (appellant's) absence?

[colnrkurup]

This exactly is the problem. Unlike CIC or SICs the orders of the FAA are generlly found to be of bad taste. I do have orders from a FAA dispossing the First Appeal by stating that "I have nothing more to add to the reply furnished by the PIO". Generally the FAA being part of the same establishment of the PIO and work on mutual support basis they are found to be shy of meeting the appellant. If it become obligatory on the AAs to hear the appellant when the appellant so desire or in the case of issuing orders adverse to the plea of appellant it can prevent a large number of cases reaching The CIC/SIC. Though the Act is silent on this part, I believe that the Audi Alteram Partem is applicable at the first Appeal stage. But what we can do if the FAA does not believe or aware of that principle ? Someone has to enforce.

[karira]

If you include the following, in the "prayer" or "relief sought", in your First Appeal:

"I want to be personally present during the First Appeal hearing and personally hear the spoken orders, if any AND get a copy of the written orders. Therefore kindly inform me the time, date and venue of the First Appeal hearing with reasonable advance notice".

There will be not much scope for the FAA to ignore you. If he does ignore your request, then, that can become another ground for Second Appeal.

[colnrkurup]

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

[opsharma]

Originally Posted by sidmis

Agreed that personal presence at the Appeal hearings is not mandatory.

Conversely can we apply the Audi alteram partem principle to the first appeal stage and force a personal hearing in that stage?

Is there any breach of above principle occurs when the First Appellate Authority do not allow personal hearing to the appellant and decides in his (appellant's) absence?

Yes,logically as well as legally. As you well know ,Audi Alteram Partem literary means "hear the other side". When first appeal is filed to AA, there are two parties ,An aggrieved(appellant) and allegedly delinquent (responder PIO). This can also be termed as adminitrative hearing,where credibility is in issue,therefore "fundamental principle of natural justice" audi alteram partem is relevant and applicable.

As for Col.'s contention regarding AAs generally toeing PIOs ,what can you expect if revelation of "that information" could lead to opening of "can of worms' in that organisation, eg DC Kanoor refusing to part with information. In a high pressure mucky world,whistle blowers are not looked at kindly.

[opsharma]

Kushal,no edit function appeared after submit,please,it leads to unedited embarassing posts at times. Also in 'post reply" ,after typing for a considerable time,when submit is clicked,log in command appears even though you have logged in without any doubt,leading to waste of post and disruption in thought process.Thanks.

[colnrkurup]

What is the way out when the FAA does not give the appellant an opportunity for being heard despite specific request and dispose the first appeal replying that 'There is nothing more to add to the reply furnished by the PIO' ? In one of my second appeal I had requestted the SIC to remand the appeal to the FAA; but unfotunately the SIC has not woken up despite lapse of 7 months.

[karira]

Originally Posted by colnrkurup

What is the way out when the FAA does not give the appellant an opportunity for being heard despite specific request and dispose the first appeal replying that 'There is nothing more to add to the reply furnished by the PIO' ? In one of my second appeal I had requestted the SIC to remand the appeal to the FAA; but unfotunately the SIC has not woken up despite lapse of 7 months.

There are some decisions of the CIC wherein if the FAA has given such orders like "there is nothing................", then the CIC has remanded the matter back to the FAA.

[colnrkurup]

I appreciate such rational decision. Is it possible to get details of such a judgement ?

[colnrkurup]

The pity is that more than 7 second appeals to the SIC, Kerala where I had specifically rquested him at least to direct the FAA to hear me are pending since more than 6 months with no response other than an acknowlegement with reference of case number. Now the Kerala SIC has one more member (total 5 including the SIC) but it did not make any difference in disposal of cases.