As you state you are a STUDENT of law, let me assist you in your
furthering your study.
1) A District Magistrate (or his junior SDM) are considered to be
"executive magistrates".
2) The role / powers of Executive Magistrates are quite clearly
decribed / specified in the same CrPC you rely on (and which
role/powers. you seem to be ignoring). Their decisions may be appealed
to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate / District Sessions judge for
some matters.
3) RTI Act does not confer any RIGHT for you (citizen of India) to
receive any information u/s 4 of the Act. Section 4 casts STATUTORY
OBLIGATIONS on the State to perform certain tasks so that the citizens
can exercise their RIGHTS u/s 6 or otherwise.
4) Failure of State to carry out STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS to the extent
it denies any RIGHTS of citizens may be addressed in ORIGINAL
jurisdiction of a High Court u/a 226. You will have to disclose a
CAUSE OF ACTION.
All these are very basic things, which you will be learning NEXT SEMESTER
IF you want to discuss with me, kindly give a PARA-WISE reply to my
short points as above, instead of beating around the bush with wild
rhetoric and ad-homimem attacks.
My own expertise in this area is borne out by the DB judgment of Delhi
High Court on this issue which ruled in my favour .but which the CIC
has challenged in SLP to deny me the info..
Sarbajit
On 3/8/12, prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> sir ,
> in Ratlam Municipal Council Vs vardichand supreme court gave borad
> definition of nuisance. Public have right to file complaint U/S 133
> with the District Magistrate (although SDM are generally handle such
> matters) but if u read provisions of section 133 clearly i can say
> that in law no where it has been mentioned that only SDM is empowered
> to deal such matter
> The decision of SDM or person handling such matters is quasi judicial
> only since these authorities cannot be called as civil court.
> therefore these authorities must inform reasons to affected persons.
> U/s 4 of RTI every public authority must publish information including
> officers working with their powers and group of consultation etc since
> the office district Magistrate is also covered under RTI Act they have
> to publish info u/s 4 which includes powers of District Magistrate ,
> Subdivisional magistrate etc
>
> i have right to know what is action taken by authority on my complaint
> u/s 133 of crpc and such right is confered by s6 of RTI Act which
> isapplicable these authorities since they are under supervisory
> jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
> India and u know case subhash agrawal vs Secretary of supreme court
> cic decision
> On Mar 8, 8:25 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As you are studying law (which BTW I never did), you would be better
>> able than I to know how section 4 is to be enforced under RTI Act and
>> who is to enforce it, especially in the case when the Public Authority
>> has appointed PIO and FAA and the State Govt has also notified an
>> Information Commission.
>>
>> You can read this to see if it helps you. This is the first case about
>> section 4 disclosure since 2005 and the matter is now in SLP in SC. So
>> good luck.
>>
>> http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/BDA/judgement/21-05-2010/BDA21052010CW1271420...
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 3/8/12, prasadbvai...@yahoo.com <prasadbvai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > collector of latur district las not published info u/s 4 of RTI Act
>> > 2005 appointed pio and appellate authority without prior approval of
>> > governor of maharashtra state and also appointed senior clerk as pio
>> > and roject officer as appellate authority where as in other districts
>> > Deputy collector is pio and collector is appellate authority
>> > Bombay High Court issued direction to quasi judicial authorities to
>> > dispose all appeals and complaints in 8 weeks but latur collector has
>> > b not followed decision and kept pending for 6 months when i
>> > approached him and requested him regarding info under section 4 of rti
>> > act and action taken on complaint u/s 133 of criminal procedure code
>> > 1973 he ordered to throw me out of collector office can i have right
>> > to see infor u/s 4 and visit collector office- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.