Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    IC O P Kejariwal has recently passed two orders :

    http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/OK-11042008-09.pdf

    Since the Applicant should have filed her complaint within four months of filing her first appeal (in this case, the Applicant had filed her second appeal only on 22.10.2007, that is, six months after filing her first appeal), it is a time barred one and not tenable under the RTI-Act. Accordingly, the Commission treats this case as closed.

    http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/OK-11042008-08.pdf

    On going through the complaint, the Commission found that he had filed the second complaint more than four months after he was supposed to receive a reply from the First Appellate Authority and hence his complaint becomes time barred. The Commission, therefore, treats this case as closed.

    (PS: There is no such thing as Second Complaint...only a Second Appeal !)

    As per my reading of Sec 18 and Sec 19 of the RTI Act, there is a time limit for filing Second Appeal with the SIC/CIC....Sec 19(3).

    But the act does not provide for any time limit for filing a complaint.

    Probably someone in CIC registry is confused between Sec 18 and Sec 19.

    Can members clarify what is the correct position ?
    If indeed there is no time limit for making a Complaint under Sec 18, what should these two applicants do ?


    › Find content similar to: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    Twitter: @cjkarira

  2. #2
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Re: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    If one go only by the wordings in section 18 there is no time limit prescribed for preferring a complaint. But such a view is not commensurate with normal legal juripurudence. There has to be a time limit for everything concerned with judicial proceedings. One cannot allow someone to prefer a complaint after 10 years on a plea that there is no time limit prescribed. If 6 months is condoned why not 10 years or even 20 years However by reading in between the lines the time limit is conspicuous. Section 18 lays down that "Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be.......... This imply that other provisions of the act concerning same matter is applicable in the case of Section 18 also. Indirectly it imply that stipulation of time limit prescribed in Section 19(3) is equally applicable to Section 18 .Anyway that is how I interpret this Section.

  3. #3
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    colnrkurup,

    I do not agree with you.
    I am not a lawyer, nor a expert in jurisprudence but read the act like a common man. One should go by what is written in the main Act and the rules which are laid down for the operation of the Act.

    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be.........." does not mean that any provision from any other section can be read and interpreted as a time limit for Sec 18.

    If your argument is that there has to be a time limit for everything concerned with judicial proceedings, then there should be a time limit for deciding the Second Appeal also.

    How come Sec 19(6) puts a time limit for deciding First Appeal (30 or max 45 days) but there is no time limit for deciding Second Appeal ? What happened to jurisprudence, in this instance ?

    If you see Sec 11(v) of the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007:

    (v) The Registrar may reject any such appeal or complaint petition
    (a) if it is time-barred; or
    (b) if it is otherwise inadmissible; or
    (c) if it is not in accordance with these Regulations.
    Provided that no such appeal or complaint petition shall be rejected
    by the Registry unless the concerned appellant or the complainant
    is given an opportunity of being heard.
    The decision of the Registrar in regard to the issue of
    maintainability of an appeal or a complaint shall be final.


    I think someone in the CIC registry is having a look at all the appeals/complaints and filtering them out at the initial stage. In these two cases they have just got confused between Second Appeal procedure and Complaint procedure. The order has been drafted and IC has also signed it.

    Please also note that there is no mention in the two orders, if the Registrar gave the complainants a opportunity of being heard.

    As a final argument, please see the decision of CIC W Habbibullah:

    http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30032007_03.pdf

    It was open to Shri J.K. Aggarwal to approach the PIO or
    this Commission through an application for review or complaint u/s18 in which case no time bar would have applied.

    Twitter: @cjkarira

  4. #4
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    5 Post(s)

    Re: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !



    I fully agree with your reasoning.Anyone with even ordinary prudence will think exactly the way you had interpretted. I said that it was my way of interpretting it. I did not and do not wish to claim that I am right. Non-accountability and non-stipulation of time frame at second appeal stage is a fait accomplii manipulated by the bureaucracy at some stage of enactment.

    Most of the Activists know about my view on non-sustainability of the CIC's (Management) Regulations 2007. My observations on the Regulation is available even in my blog of this forum. I had pointed out long ago that, as per the RTI Act the Registrar has absolutely no powers whereas the CIC has delegated him the powers to reject an appeal . With so much service in the IAS Cadre the CIC would have realised the basic provisions of " Delegation of powers " that a delegatee cannot delegate. If I am aware of it there is no reason for the IAS Officers remaining ignorant of it. The CIC himself being a delegatee he cannot delegate his powers to his Registrar. I have been fighting againt this unlawful orders with Prof.KK Nigam, the Legal Advisor of CIC and CIC from the first day of proclamation of this hara-kiri. I would prefer not to quote this Regulation for anything because it is unlawful and non-sustainable.Unfortunately no one seems aproached judiciary against the Regulation.

  5. #5
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    When law is ambiguous or silent, apply common sense/natural justice. Ic should have seen whether the delay has made the whole thing infructuos or relief incompatible/impractical, then he should have rejected the complaint. Otherwise the benefit should have gone to the complainant

  6. #6
    Posts
    296
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: IC O P Kejariwal misinterprets the RTI Act 2005 !


    It is true that there is no time limit to prefer a complaint under S.18 of the RTI Act. Even the Limitation Act does not apply to S. 18. However, the delay must not be as such so as to defeat the purpose of filing the complaint.

Tags for this Thread



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 youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android