In contemporary society, information disclosure has become an important legal right, which not only helps to safeguard citizens' right to know and supervise, but also plays a vital role in ensuring social justice and transparency.
However, in some cases, a citizen's request for information may be hindered and rejected. Mr. Liu is one of them, and fortunately, with the assistance of the two lawyers, he has successfully defended his legal rights. Next, let's review the entire process of handling the case.
Case review
Mr. Liu, the owner of a project, submitted an application to the Urban-Rural Development Bureau on January 6, 2023 to verify the legality of the project, requesting the disclosure of information related to the project.
On January 29, 2023, the Urban-Rural Development Bureau issued a "** Information Disclosure Reply" to Mr. Liu. At this time, Mr. Liu did not know that the content of the reply would disappoint him. The reply stated: "As of the date of this notice, there is no information you have requested to be disclosed in the information produced or obtained by our bureau in the course of performing administrative functions and recorded and stored in a certain form." This left Mr. Liu very confused and questioned the legitimacy of the project even more.
Time passed, and Mr. Liu still did not find a solution to the problem. In desperation, he found Beijing Lianggao Law Firm and entrusted the case to Lianggao lawyers to protect his legitimate rights and interests.
Case handling process
The two lawyers first calmed Mr. Liu's emotions, and then after in-depth understanding of the case, they explained to Mr. Liu in accordance with the corresponding laws and regulations: The Urban-Rural Development Bureau replied that "there is no information that you applied for disclosure", but in fact the project has been completed, and they should inform Mr. Liu which department he needs to apply for relevant information and the address of ***, but they did not provide this information.
Before the two lawyers could finish speaking, Mr. Liu eagerly asked how to deal with it. Lawyer Lianggao said that he could apply for administrative reconsideration to the local people** on his behalf to obtain relevant documents and protect Mr. Liu's legitimate rights and interests.
During the reconsideration period, the Urban-Rural Development Bureau submitted relevant search and query records, arguing that the "** Information Disclosure Reply" made by itself complied with legal procedures, found that the facts were clear, and the applicable laws and regulations were correct, and hoped to reject the applicant's application for reconsideration.
The two lawyers had anticipated this situation for a long time and prepared a complete chain of evidence and a strong defense. He said
According to the relevant provisions of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Information Disclosure, the respondent only informed that the relevant materials had not been produced and stored, but did not explain the reasons, which was an illegal act.
The respondent informed in the reply that "there is no such thing as all the information requested by the applicant", but according to the evidence submitted by the respondent, it cannot prove that it has fully fulfilled the search and search obligations for all matters.
In the "Report" issued by the Municipal Fire Acceptance Center on January 13, 2023, it is clearly stated that "the project was opened in September 2011, and the on-site fire protection was organized and accepted by the former public security fire department". According to the relevant provisions of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Information Disclosure, the respondent should give guidance to the applicant, but there is no reasonable guidance in the reply.
To sum up, the two lawyers believe that the facts of the reply given by the Urban-Rural Development Bureau are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, and it is necessary to re-perform the information disclosure obligation.
Outcome of the reconsideration
Relying on the rich experience of the lawyers of the two Supreme People's Courts in handling similar cases, they obtained materials at the first time to formulate an exclusive rights protection plan, and the administrative reconsideration achieved corresponding success. In the end, the reconsideration organ made the following decision:
Revoke the "** Information Disclosure Reply" made by the respondent, and order the respondent to reply to the applicant again within the statutory time limit from the date of receipt of the decision.