Re: [HumJanenge] Power of Information Commission to reconsider its decision

THANKS JUSTICE KAMLESHWAR NATH JI.
In a fake SCC Suit which was filed 20 years back by a
land grabber in the court of Judge Small Causes Lucknow, who decreed
the suit and passed Judgment in an arbitray manner relying upon a
collusive order passed by A.D.M.( Rent Control) who declared that
land grabber as owner of property in question (ADM is not having
jurisdiction & only a civil Judge has jurisdiction to declare some one
as owner of a property) and the court below who did the mistake &
the district judge & even Hon. High Court has not initiated an inquiry
nor given any relief to the aggrieved party so that the possession of
property may be restored, till date, is a very unfortunate affair, in
the history of law.
YOU HAVE VERY CLEARLY MENTIONED THE LEGAL PARAMETERS TO THE POINTs.
Thanks a lot FOR YOU HAVE CLARIFIED THE LAW
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE / HUMANRIGHTS / RTI ACTIVIST

On 12/16/10, Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com> wrote:
> All statutory authorities have to act within the four corners of the powers
> conferred by the Statute. The only exception recognized for acting beyond
> those powers is where an order has been passed 'without jurisdiction'. An
> order passed without jurisdiction is a "nullity" and can be ignored by
> anyone, including the IC; but if an order passed is within jurisdiction, it
> is not capable of being reviewed. Principles of 'natural justice' do not
> include the supposed right to rectify an error. An authority which has
> jurisdiction to make an order has jurisdiction also to make an incorrect
> order, which can be set right only by a superior authority. 'Natural
> justice' is a concept of 'procedure' not of 'substance'. Thus failure to
> give an opportunity before passing an adverse order is hit by 'natural
> justice', taking decision in a case in which the judge has an interest is
> against 'natural justice'. Similarly 'bias' violates 'natural justice'; but
> passing an erroneous order does not constitute failure of 'natural justice'.
> Thus an order of Penalty under Section 20 of RTI Act cannot be termed to be
> contrary to natural justice simply because some grounds are set out later to
> mitigate the penalty. If a penalty is imposed @ Rs 300/- per day or the
> maximum Penalty amount is fixed at more than Rs 25,000/-, it would be
> without jurisdiction and can be set aside.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> KN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From the Desk of :
>
> Justice Kamleshwar Nath
>
>
> Retd.
>
> :
>
> Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),
>
> Vice Chairman - C.A.T ( Allahabad ),
>
> Judge - High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
>
>
> Address
>
> :
>
> `Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India
>
>
> Phone(s)
>
> :
>
> +91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Amitabh Thakur
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Power of Information Commission to reconsider its
> decision
>
>
>
>
> Friends,
>
> As we all know Section 20(1) of the RTI Act says that where the Information
> Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
> opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive
> an application for information or has not furnished information within the
> specified time or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly
> given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information etc., it shall impose
> a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is
> received with a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000. It has a proviso that says
> that the PIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before
> any penalty is imposed on him.
>
> In a particular case in which I was a complainant before the UP State
> Information Commission (SIC), the SIC had said in its order dated
> 22/06/2010-
> On the last date, the PIO Mr X was asked to provide the information or make
> it clear if the info cannot be given. Today the PIO did not appear nor did
> he inform of his reason for absence. Hence a fine under section 20 is being
> imposed with effect from the last date, 31/05/2010.
>
> The fine never got imposed and meanwhile the PIO presented dome
> representation seeking reprieve from the penalty. I also resented facts
> before the SIC saying that section 20 of the RTI Act does not seem to have a
> provision for reconsideration by the Information Commission. But on
> 19/11/2010, the SIC waived off its fine saying-
>
> "PIO says that at that time, B's case was pending in the Central
> Administrative Tribunal. Hence there was some delay in providing
> information. Moreover the PIO was also on Earned Leave between 26/05/2010
> and 13/06/2010. The PIO assures on not repeating this in future.
> The Commission is of the view that if a fine has been imposed on a PIO
> without his/her fault and if these facts come in the notice of the
> Commission, then the Principle of Natural Justice says that an innocent
> person shall not be unnecessarily punished.
> In this case the information has been provided and the PIO has not
> intentionally made any mistake. Hence the fine imposed previously is waived
> off."
>
> There are a few factual mistakes in the order including the facts like-
> 1. Very huge delays were made in providing the information. The letter was
> sent to PIO on 29/05/2009 and then to the Appellate Authority on 05/10/2009.
> The information was finally given on 02/08/2010 after the fine was imposed
> 2. On the date on which fine was imposed, the PIO was not on leave but had
> already come back
>
> Then there is also a question of law. When the SIC made an order on
> 22/06/2010, it must have been made taking into considerations all the facts
> and circumstances. Can the SIC/CIC reconsider their own decisions? In what
> ways and circumstances? What does law say on this?
>
> I place all these facts before you to kindly guide me on this vital issue,
> based on your knowledge of law, so that I might proceed accordingly.
>
>
>
> <http://nspindia.com/amitabh%20essays.htm>
> http://nspindia.com/amitabh%20essays.htm
>
>
> Amitabh Thakur
> Currently at IIM Lucknow
> # 94155-34526
> <http://www.nationalrtiforum.org/> www.nationalrtiforum.org
>
>
>
>