Information disclosure is a key part of ensuring transparency and protecting citizens' rights. However, Beijing Lianggao Law Firm recently received a case in which the Development and Reform Bureau did not respond to citizens' requests for information disclosure within the statutory time limit.
This makes us think:Can administrative agencies be indifferent to citizens' requests for information disclosure?Next, let's take a look at how the two lawyers successfully resolved this problem!
Details of the case
Mr. Tian purchased a house in a certain real estate, and in order to confirm the legitimacy of the real estate, he entrusted the lawyer of Beijing Lianggao Law Firm to defend his rights and apply to the XX Development and Reform Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "Development and Reform Bureau") for information disclosure.
On January 4, 2023, the two senior lawyers submitted the ** information disclosure application form to the XX Development and Reform Bureau by mail, and the application items are:Apply for written disclosure of the approval documents, feasibility study report, preliminary design approval, and enterprise investment project record certificate of the xx construction project in accordance with the law.
Logistics records show that the application was received by the XX Development and Reform Bureau on January 9, 2023. However, the respondent did not provide any reply within the required 20 working days.
Lawyer Liang Gao believes that:
According to the relevant provisions of the "** Information Disclosure Regulations", the administrative organ shall give a reply within 20 working days after receiving the ** information disclosure application submitted by the applicant. In this case, the respondent's statutory deadline for reply was January 29, 2023, but the respondent had not replied to the applicant until February 19, 2023, the date on which the applicant filed an administrative reconsiderationThe respondent's failure to reply within the time limit clearly infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant.
Therefore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, the lawyers of the two high courts filed an administrative reconsideration with the people of the city and submitted relevant evidence. I hope that your authority can ascertain the facts and support the applicant's request for reconsideration in accordance with the lawThe respondent is ordered to reply in writing to the applicant's application for information disclosure within the time limit, and the reply is served on the applicant.
The respondent argued:
The courier sent by Mr. Tian on January 9, 2023 has not been received by our bureau. Moreover, after investigation, the construction project has not been filed with our bureau. However, in accordance with the provisions of the "** Information Disclosure Regulations", our bureau has already replied to Mr. Tian on March 3.
Reconsideration Decision
The reconsideration organ believes that in accordance with Articles 33, 36 and 40 of the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Information Disclosure".The respondent shall respond in accordance with law. However, in this case, the respondent did not respond within the statutory time limit, which means that they did not perform their statutory duties in a timely manner. Although the respondent claimed that it had already replied on March 3, 2023 and sent it to the applicant on March 4, 2023, the reconsideration authority determined that this was a remedy for the failure to respond in a timely manner.
Therefore, the reconsideration organ believes that the respondent should strengthen the management of information disclosure, conscientiously abide by the provisions of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Information Disclosure, and make the following decisions:It is confirmed that the respondent's failure to respond to the application for information disclosure within the statutory time limit is illegal.
The key to winning the case
In this case, the intervention of the two senior lawyers played a very important role. When the NDRC failed to perform its statutory disclosure duties in a timely manner, the lawyers of the two senior firms directly promoted the acceptance of the case through many reasonable and well-founded communications and comprehensive opinions by virtue of their familiarity with laws and regulations and rich practical experience, and finally successfully safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.