Second Appeal against Delhi District Courts PIO & FAA for
False & Evasive Reply (Before SAA i.e., Central Information Commission)
INDEX
OF DOCUMENTS
A1-A3:
Second Appeal dated . . .
A4:
Postal Proof to PIO
A5:
Postal Proof to FAA
A6:
Previous First Appeal Hearing Notice due to which the concrned RTI was filed
A8:
RTI dated …
A9-A14:
Enclosures mentioned within bottom of A8
A15-A17:
PIO’s Reply
A18-A19:
First Appeal dated …
A20:
FA hearing notice by FAA
A21:
FAA’s Reply
To Dated 11/11/2016
Second Appellate
Authority (SAA),
Central Information Commission
Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, August Kranti
Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066
Sub:- Second
Appeal u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005
ATUR CHATUR
. . . . . . Appellant
VERSUS
PIO, DWARKA COURT . . . . . Respondent No. 1
FAA, DWARKA COURT . . . . . Respondent No. 2
Respected Sir/Madam,
A.
None of the grounds raised in my
appeal (Post No.4) is adjudicated by the FAA. The very contention that the
information has been supplied by PIO is blatantly false. Though the FAA agreed
that there is no rule to call the Appellant for hearing, he failed to give
direction to supply the copy of say produced by the PIO before the FAA. The
contention of FAA that appellant was called for his own benefit is not borne
out from record and hence wrong. Appellant had filed memo of appeal with facts
and grounds. In order to argue his case before FAA, the appellant must know
what are the say of the opponents or the reasons cited by PIO in rebutting the
grounds of appeal, without which there can be no meaningful hearing by FAA.
Hearing cannot be one sided i.e. hearing of Appellant alone. Appellant cannot
be heard by suppressing the say of the PIO. Principles of natural justice
necessitates that the say of the other side must be made known to the appellant
in order to enable him to present his arguments. Therefore the contention of
FAA of calling Appellant for hearing on appellants' own benefits is unfounded.
Hearing cannot be held as an empty formality.
B.
It is the duty of the FAA to review
and adjudicate whether his PIO has acted reasonably and within the meaning of
the Act and if the PIO is wrong, take corrective actions. Neither FAA has
adjudicated the points raised before him in present appeal, nor directed PIO to
supply the information, including the say of the PIO on the pleadings in appeal
of previous appeal case, based on which FAA had taken the decision.
C.
This is a fit case to culminate to
the stage of WP to seek an adjudication that supply of copy of the say of PIO
to the appellant is an essential ingredient of principles of natural justice,
in order to have a meaningful exercise of hearing and proper adjudication of
the appeal.
PRAYER:-
(1)
It is humbly prayed that the PIO/FAA
be directed to immediately release this information which he has malafidely
denied in the light of above facts & circumstances.
(2)
I humbly pray for a speaking order
and for discussion of enclosures.
(3)
PENALTY U/S XYZ 25000
(4)
The further information shall be
provided free of cost i.e., the applicant/ undersigned be exempted in view of
section 7(6) of RTI Act 2005 from payment of any further fee payable by me for
supplying of requested information on account of default on the part of PIO to
supply information within prescribed time.
(5)
Action & Penalty against erring
PIO as per section 20 of RTI Rules’2005
Other reliefs &
orders as this Hon’ble SAA deems fit.
(ATUR CHATUR)
C/o Q-7/77, GF, Sector-30, Rohini, Delhi-110085
Email: aturchatur@yahoo.com
Phone: 09873540498
No comments:
Post a Comment