Topic Identifier

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 24

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

  1. #9

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


    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.



  2. #10

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


    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

  3. #11

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


    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?

  4. #12
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

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



    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.

  5. #13
    Posts
    44,512
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    553

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


    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.

  6. #14
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

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


    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

  7. #15

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


    Quote Originally Posted by sidmis View Post
    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.

  8. #16

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


    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook Apple App Store Google Play for Android