Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Act -Se. 19 First Appeal: Advocate not allowed to represent

In the matter of Advocate Not allowed in first appeal
I just read in an Delhi high court order The court said petitioner has not been given oppurtunity to defend himself in the matter The request of the petitioner was rejected without assining any reason adding that he be provided with a defence assistant was twice rejected by the inquiry officer .
Well this calls for action at the relevant forum 

N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

--- On Mon, 20/8/12, Joshi NM <naishadhjoshi@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joshi NM <naishadhjoshi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Act -Se. 19 First Appeal: Advocate not allowed to represent
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 20 August, 2012, 12:17 PM


Hello Sarabjit Ji,

 

Thank you for your prompt reply, which I quite appreciate.

 

Some supplementary facts:

 

1.      The request for information was made to State PIO in Gujarat.

2.      State has issued to all its PIOs, translation (from English to vernacular state language) of various communications received from central Govt., under RTI Act. State by itself has not issued any notification or circular or G.O. with respect to permitting/rejecting representative/s on behalf of applicant/appellant in First or any subsequent appeal.

3.      As seen from previous experiences, Advocates were permitted to file formal appearance in many cases in First as well as all subsequent stages of appeal so far. Vakalatnama in these cases were approved.

 

Therefore, questions are:

 

A.     In absence of state notification, considering previous departmental practice in general in state, can State First Appellate authority reject a vakalatnama (r.w. sec. 30 of Advocates  Act, 1961) filed in First Appeal? What about permitting representation through power of attorney issued under Powers Of Attorney Act, 1882?

B.     In your reasoned opinion, do you think a notification disallowing advocate / authorised representatives under RTI is ultra-wires; as PIOs are legally trained whereas illiterate citizens cannot individually match dominance & legal skill of PIOs. More so, when provisions of Act are attempted to be controlled/restricted through notification.


with all the best regards,

-Joshi

On 20 August 2012 10:27, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Since advocates (legal practitioners) are prohibited (by duly notified
Rules) from representing
either side at the 2nd Appeal stage, there can be no objection to
their being disallowed at lower proceedings.

Sarbajit

On 8/20/12, Joshi NM <naishadhjoshi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Request for information was made u/s 6 properly.
> Information was public record and no difficulty for giving it.
>
> Time limitation is well over.
> No information is provided or no reason is given for refusal to provide
> information.
> In fact, no reply was given by PIO.
>
> First Appeal u/s 19 is filed properly.
>
> Appellate officer has granted hearing with clear instruction that:
> Appellant has to personally remain present and advocate will not be allowed
> to appear/represent the Appellant.
>
> Questions are:
> 1.can Appellant be compelled to appear in person to conduct appeal?
> 2.can advocate be disallowed to represent on record the appellant by
> rejecting Vakalatnama filed with appeal memo.
> 3.if formal rejection of Vakalatnama is issued in writing, what recourse is
> advisable?
>
> --
> *Best Regards,*
> -Joshi NM
>



--
Best Regards,
-Joshi NM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.