[HumJanenge] Larger bench

(Changed the subject line of the email)

Haven't come across any order from the CIC, where the matter was referred to a a larger bench since the appellant/respondent requested.

It is always the IC who sends the matter for consideration of a larger bench.

In quite a few cases, it is simply because the IC does not want to take the decision himself, alone.

Even is those matters, where the CIC has already decided that matters will be heard by a division bench - for example matters related to High Courts - ex CIC WH ruled that that was only applicable on a case to case basis and went on to hear my matter related to the Delhi HC as a single IC/CIC - thus violating his own commissions orders. Please see page 6 of the following order:

http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_C_2010_900030_M_42957.pdf 

RTIwanted

---

From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC

Abhrol jee,

Thanks for pointing out the legal position  on "referring cases to
higher/full bench".

Btw would you care to cite 3/4 such cases which you might have come across.

Sidharth

On 18 May 2011 10:55, Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> IC Shailesh Gandhi is not empowered to refer the issue to full Bench.
> Matter can be taken up by the opponent i.e Respondant or Applicant.
> This is my personal assessmnet
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Rakshpal Abrol
> Consumer Activist
> 9820203154
> rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 18 May, 2011 7:47:35 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
>
> I wonder why IC Gandhi did not referred this case to a "FULL BENCH"
> since it involved substantial question of law ! IMHO
>
>