Reply: [HumJanenge] Goa Cricket Association moves to High Court against the order of Information commission

Dear All,

 

Section 23 of RTI Act 2005 states:

 

23

No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

Now remember RTI Act 2005 was passed by the parliament. Parlianment is supreme body of representation of people. All aspects of State, as defined in Art.12 of the constitution are subordinate to parliament. Act by parliament denotes will of people. In Democracy will of people reigns supreme.

 

Art. 143 empowers only Supreme Court to interpret an Act parliament on a direction by  President. In such a case How can a High Court accept an appeal against decision of Information commission when Act of Parliament i.e RTI Act 2005 by its section 23 barred  jurisdiction of all court? How can a High Court overide an Act  by Parliament?

 

An applicant under RTI Act 2005 on not receiving information can appeal to High Court & Supreme Court claiming that ones right is violated under Art 226 & 32 0f The Constitution of India. This is not available to PIO or Public Authority.

 

In passing RTI Act 2005 & its secytion 23 The parliament has & is deemed to have used its Constituent Power vested with it under Art 368 of the Constitution of India.

 

As in Democracy the Government is  a Government By A People; of the People & For the People

with Parliament being representative body, enactment by Parliament denoting will of people,

 

Right to Information being inherent right of people in a Democrcy,

 

This having been reiterated by Supreme Court of India in Raj Narain Vs. State of UP & Peoples Union for Civil L:iberties Vs, Uniom of India as a fundamental Right being a facet of Art 19 (1)(a) of The Constitution of India,

 

Read with Art. 140 to 144 of The Constitution of India, as well as Art 12, 13(2) of The Constitution of India, No court can adudicate on peoples inherent right to information in a Democracy where by people have a right to question the The Government they elect making the Government & its ramificationsd or instrumentalities accountable to people or governed.

 

This is the underlying principle of transparcy in the functioning of Government & its accountability to the Governed.

 

For,

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is an universal legal principle/doctrine holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. However, Ignorentia facti, excusat meaning, ignorance of fact is excusable in jurisprudence.

 

SENTIA LEGIS meaning interpretation of legislature

 

Regards,

WEDS

---

From: Anand acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
To: hrm <hrm@yahoogroups.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; rti4empowerment <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 22:26:35
Subject: [HumJanenge] Goa Cricket Association moves to High Court against the order of Information commission

GCA moves High Court

http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnews.asp?articleID=51398

United News of India
Panaji, Nov 9:
Goa Cricket Association (GCA) has moved the Bombay High Court,
challenging the order of the Goa State Information Commission which
had ruled that the GCA comes under the ambit of the Right to
Information Act.
The petition will come up for hearing before the vacation judge of the
Bombay High Court at Goa Justice N A Britto on November 10.
On a complaint filed by Advocate Aires Rodrigues, the State Chief
Information Commissioner Motilal Keny had on October 7 in a 23-page
landmark order directed the Goa Cricket Assocation to furnish Advocate
Rodrigues within 30 days the information sought by him on the fees
paid by the GCA to its lawyer Subodh Kantak.
The State Chief Information Commissioner ruled that the government
notification dated July 8, 2010 that sports organizations and Sports
Associations recognized by Sports Authority of Goa are covered under
the RTI Act was binding on the GCA.
After Advocate Rodrigues sought information from the GCA on the fees
paid to their lawyer Mr Kantak, the cricket body which is headed by
Goa's former Law Minister Dayanand Narvekar took a stand that it does
not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
Rodrigues, in a release here today, said the GCA claimed that the
Right to Information Act was not applicable to it as it had not
received any financial or other assistance from the Goa Government or
the Sports Authority of Goa.
However, Rodrigues submitted documentary proof to the effect that the
Goa Government had granted to the GCA on a 99-year-lease land
admeasuring 1,30,328 sq meters at Tivim for the construction of a
cricket stadium at a nominal rent of Rs 50,000/- per year.
Rodrigues also submitted evidence that the Sports Authority of Goa had
also given GCA financial assistance of Rs 50 lakhs.
Rodrigues submitted further evidence to the effect that the Sports
Authority of Goa was also paying the salaries of cricket coaches given
to the GCA, the release added.

--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-92410-12730 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +91-92410-12730      end_of_the_skype_highlighting