The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, January 22, 2020.
Information Commission asks court PIO to produce records
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has directed the Public Information Officer of the Madras High Court to produce records relating to a review petition filed by a Scientific Officer, who complained that his petition for review of a judgment was neither numbered nor listed, resulting in its being rejected for not filing within the time limit.
In an appeal, Vinod Kumar, Scientific Officer, National Test House, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Chennai, said though eight months had passed, he received no intimation for listing/hearing of his review petition against a judgment.
Passing orders on the appeal, State Information Commissioner R. Dakshinamurthy directed the public authority to produce the filing/return register for review petitions in the next hearing without fail.
Mr. Kumar under the Right to Information Act sought details of the daily action-taken report since he filed the review petition, the justification for the delay in listing his petition and the date on which the petition was presented before the Bench of judges.
He received a reply that his petition was received on April 23, 2018 and allotted to the Appeal Examiner on the same day.
After scrutiny, the Appeal Examiner returned the papers on May 4, 2018, for compliance of certain defects pointed out by the Registry within ten days. But since the papers were not taken back by the petitioner in person, the question of numbering or presenting the case to the bench did not arise, it said.
Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority stating that he visited the court in person on three occasions, but did not find the return of his papers for rectification of defects.
He claimed that he did not receive any intimation either by SMS, email or phone that the review petition was returned with queries. The PIO has neither given a certified copy to prove his point nor shared the details of the appellate authority.
Seeking action
Since no reply was received, Mr. Kumar moved the Tamil Nadu Information Commission seeking a direction to the PIO and First Appellate Authority to share all information sought by him in full. He also sought action against the PIO and First Appellate Authority for violation of provisions under the RTI Act.
The public authority represented by Joint Registrar (RTI) submitted that normally no SMS or email is sent to rectify the defects to petitioners. It was the duty of the petitioner to follow the action taken by the Registry on his review petition.
The petitioner stated that he approached the filing section in the Madras High Court but could not trace his papers and hence could not resubmit the review petition after rectification of defects. He further alleged that “because of the fault of Registry the limitation period for filing review petition has lapsed.
When asked about advocates or petitioners getting back the review petitions in person, the PIO stated that there was a register to record the procedure.
after hearing both the sides, Mr. Dakshinamurthy directed the PIO to produce the filing register and return register for the review petition pertaining to April 23, 2018 and report the status of the petition filed by Mr. Kumar before the court competent to condone the delay.
.JPG)
.JPG)
