Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

If the PIO refuses to supply information despite being given a
time-bound direction to do so by the final appellate body, then the
Ld. Judge has held that the remedy is "stringent" penalty /
disciplinary action by CIC/SIC as envisaged in section 20.

SHOULD THE PIO then seek a stay on the penalty HE will have to
approach the HC, which makes it much easier for the applicant as
burden of proof is on PIO and not on applicant. <smile>

SHOULD THE SIC NOT IMPOSE PENALTY, then the Appellant can approach HC
in appropriate writ - use Muzib Ur Rehman's decision in Delhi High
Court

Basically what Ld Judge is saying is - IT I S PREMATURE FOR YOU TO
COME TO ME NOW

At the end of it all, the HC will order the info to be disclosed in
any case or the penalty will follow.

Sarbajit

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The objective of the RTI Act is to disseminate/obtain information.
> What is the point in ONLY getting a penalty imposed, if information is not
> provided ?
>
> Nowhere does Sec 20 state that if Penalty is paid, information need not be
> provided.
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>
> It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
> a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
> to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
> CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
> complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
> Court)