How to decide SIC Bench jurisdiction in Maharashtra

[Atul Patankar]

Maharashtra is one of the few states in India which has set up a bench for each revenue division (though a few of them have no SIC presently). But that gives rise to an interesting question - if the applicant and PIO are from different revenue divisions, then where to make the second appeal? The SIC of division where the applicant is there? or is it the SIC of PIO's division.

Recently I came across an old decision of SIC, Nashik - where applicant belongs to nashik division; PIO office falls within Aurangabad Division, and the FAA sits at Mubmbai - under the Mumbai division.

However, it seems, this issue was not discussed at all at the time of hearing. Both PIO and FAA attended the hearing at Nashik.

Is someone aware of any formal pronouncement in this regard? Do we have any legal basis for deciding the jurisdiction as per applicants or PIOs location?

The decision is attached, but its in Marathi.http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/...05.05.2011.pdf

[karira]

Sponsorer

I raised this issue with many activists in Maharashtra but no one had a firm answer.

When I checked with Mr Kuvalekar, he said that jurisdiction is based on the location of the public authority.

[taurus]

Normal logic followed in such cases to answer the question where the dispute arose. Naturally it is at the location of the PA. That answers where the issue is to be fought. In the case of Central Administrative Tribunals this logic is generally followed, though there are a few exceptions.

[Atul Patankar]

Location of Public authority seems a bit confusing to me.

The pA has a branch at Nashik. A customer of this branch has made an application for information to another branch, which falls under Aurangabad Division. The FAA office is in Mumbai.

But the PA head office is in Pune (under Pune division), and if that becomes relevant there is 1 more angle to this.