Translate:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti [2018/09/12 14:42] – [Authors] Shrawan
+++ important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti [2026/04/19 15:28] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing ======
-{{ :important-decisions:ic-case-laws:rti-advocate.png?200|}}
-{{like>}}
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions cic case laws advocates rti rti right to information india)
+metatag-description=(In an order of the Full Bench Punjab State Information Commission (SIC) where is has deliberated and decided on the following issues:)}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In one line.** Any person, including a person who is not an Advocate, may appear on behalf of an applicant or a Public Information Officer before an Information Commission, provided the Commission has authorised the appearance. The representative may charge a consideration.
+**What that means in practice.**
+  * An applicant is not required to engage an Advocate to appear before the Commission.
+  * A non-Advocate representative must obtain the Commission's authorisation; a formal Vakalatnama is not required, but a written authorisation is ordinarily expected.
+  * A Public Information Officer may also be represented by an Advocate or a departmental officer.
+  * The decision is of the Punjab State Information Commission, Full Bench. It has persuasive value before the Central Information Commission and other State Commissions.
+</WRAP>
+{{ :important-decisions:cic-case-laws:rti-advocate.png?200|}}
 In an order of the Full Bench Punjab State Information Commission (SIC) where is has deliberated and decided on the following issues:
@@ Line 10: / Line 25: @@
   - Whether there should be a **specific format of Vakalatnama/authorization**  which must be submitted by non-Advocate representing an information-seeker before the Commission.
   - Whether a formal Order needs to be passed by the Commission in each case permitting such non-Advocate to represent an information-seeker, before such individual can be allowed to appear or plead on behalf of the information seeker.
-<html>
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-     data-ad-layout="in-article"
-     data-ad-format="fluid"
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-     data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-<script>
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
-</script>
-</html>
 ===== Decision of the Commission =====
@@ Line 33: / Line 36: @@
-The Decisions is available here: {{:important-decisions:ic-case-laws:appearance_of_advocates_in_info_commissions_punjab_sic.pdf|Download Decision}}
+The Decisions is available here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:appearance_of_advocates_in_info_commissions_punjab_sic.pdf|Download Decision}}
-~~socialite~~
+===== Related =====
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:format-rti-cpio|Format for giving information to the applicants]].
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:ministers-under-rti|Ministers Under RTI]].
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs|Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs]].
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws|Commission Decisions]].
+  * [[important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
+{{tag>rti case-law cic}}

Was this page helpful?