Yingting news

First-instance administrative judgment on Bo Moumou and the People's Government of Yanwo Town, Lijin County for failing to perform the statutory duty of disclosing government information

Release date: 2014-12-23Viewed: 3 times·

· People's Court of Lijin County, Shandong Province

administrative judgment

(2014) Li Xing Chu Zi No. 19

Plaintiff: Bo Moumou, male, Han nationality.

Authorized agent: Wang Qingfeng, lawyer at Beijing Shengting Law Firm.

Authorized agent: Lu Jianan, lawyer at Beijing Shengting Law Firm.

Defendant: People's Government of Yanwo Town, Lijin County.

Legal representative: Zhao Binglan, mayor of the town.

Authorized agent: Song Kai, lawyer at Shandong Chengzhengqin Law Firm.

The plaintiff Bo Moumou sued the defendant Yanwo Town People's Government of Lijin County (hereinafter referred to as the Yanwo Town Government) for failing to perform its legal duty to disclose government information. After the case was filed on August 28, 2014, this court served the defendant with a copy of the complaint and a notice of response within the statutory time limit and formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law. The court held a public hearing on September 23, 2014. Wang Qingfeng and Lu Jianan, the attorneys of the plaintiff Bo Wansheng, and Song Kai, the attorney of the defendant Yanwo Town Government, attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. This case has now been concluded.

Plaintiff Bo claimed that on July 3, 2014, the plaintiff mailed a government information disclosure application to the defendant via China Post Express, applying for government approval procedures for the disclosure of the gravel road that crosses the courtyard of the plaintiff’s house. The defendant received the application on July 7, 2014, but did not disclose the government information involved in the case to the plaintiff within the statutory period. The plaintiff believes that applying for information disclosure is a legal right granted to citizens by the law, and the defendant has a legal obligation to handle the plaintiff's application. The defendant's refusal to reply violated the basic obligations of the administrative agency and infringed upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. We are now filing a lawsuit, requesting the People's Court to confirm that the defendant's inaction on government information disclosure is illegal in accordance with the law, and order the defendant to disclose the government information involved in the case to the plaintiff within a time limit.

The defendant, Yanwo Town Government, submitted a defense within the statutory time limit, arguing that: (1) The defendant did not commit any illegal act of omission. The plaintiff claimed that it mailed an information disclosure application to the defendant via express mail on July 3, 2014, but the defendant never received the information disclosure application mailed by the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant was unable to provide an information disclosure reply to the plaintiff, so the defendant did not commit any illegal act of omission. (2) The plaintiff requested to disclose the government approval procedures for the gravel road crossing the courtyard of his house. Judging from the content of the information requested by the plaintiff, it is a gravel road, which should be a temporary access road and does not fall within the scope of information disclosure. Assuming that the gravel road requires approval, the defendant is not the approval department for road construction and cannot disclose this information to the plaintiff. To sum up, the defendant did not receive the plaintiff’s request for information disclosure; the content of the information requested by the plaintiff did not fall within the scope of the defendant’s responsibility to respond. Request the court to ascertain the facts and reject the plaintiff’s claims in accordance with the law.

The focus of the trial in this case is: whether the defendant Yanwo Town Government received the plaintiff’s information disclosure application.

Focusing on the key issues in this case, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to the court:

The first set of evidence:

1. A copy of the express delivery slip. Sender: Wang Qingfeng; Sender's organization name: Beijing Shengting Law Firm; Sender's address: Room ×, Building ×, Digital Building, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing; Recipient: Yanwo Town Government Information Disclosure Leading Group Office; Recipient's organization name : Yanwo Town People's Government; Recipient address: No. 1, Zhenghe Street, Yanwo Town, Lijin County, Dongying City; Total number of items mailed: Bo Moumou's information disclosure application form, copies of Bo's ID card and homestead use certificate, photos, lawyer entrustment procedures; Mailing time: July 3, 2014.

2. An application form for government information disclosure. Applicant's name: Bo Moumou; ID number: ××; Contents of the required information: The homestead courtyard that the applicant has the legal right to use is located at No. We are now applying to the government for approval of the relevant procedures for the gravel road that forcibly crosses the applicant's courtyard. We hope that the relevant procedures will be made public.

3. A copy of the mail express inquiry form. Delivery result: The mail was delivered and signed for on 2014-07-07 (Lijin County Yanwo Post and Telecommunications Branch).

The plaintiff used this set of evidence to prove that it applied for government information disclosure from the defendant by express delivery, and the defendant had received the information disclosure application.

After cross-examination, the defendant believed that the letter delivered by the plaintiff through express delivery must be signed by the recipient to be effective as mailed delivery. Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the defendant’s signature, the plaintiff could not prove based on this set of evidence that the defendant had received its information disclosure application.

The second set of evidence:

1. A copy of the "Yanwo Town Government Information Disclosure Guide" found on the Lijin County People's Government website. Article 3 of the "Guide" stipulates that the Yanwo Town Government Information Disclosure Working Agency and Acceptance Agency are the Yanwo Town Government Information Disclosure Leading Group Office; the office address is No. 1 Zhenghe Street, Yanwo Town; postal code: 257445.

2. Two copies of the webpage on government information disclosure on the Lijin County People's Government website. The content of the Yanwo Town Government information disclosure on the two web pages is the same as Evidence No. 1.

The plaintiff used this set of evidence to prove that its application was mailed in strict accordance with the name, address, and postal code of the Yanwo Town Government's information disclosure agency published on the website.

After cross-examination, the defendant believed that the set of evidence provided by the plaintiff was basically consistent with the name, address, and postal code of the information disclosure agency the defendant accepted.

The defendant, Yanwo Town Government, failed to submit relevant evidence and basis to the court within the statutory time limit.

After giving evidence and cross-examining the evidence at the trial, this court confirmed the evidence submitted by the plaintiff as follows: the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is relevant to this case, the form and source of the evidence are legal, and the content is true, so it should be valid evidence. During the trial, the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence that the defendant signed for the express mail, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff could form a complete chain of evidence and prove the fact that the defendant Yanwo Town Government received the information disclosure application.

After trial, this court confirmed the following facts: Plaintiff Bo Moumou entrusted Beijing Shengting Law Firm lawyer Wang Qingfeng to submit a government information disclosure application to the defendant Yanwo Town Government by China Post Express on July 3, 2014, requesting the defendant to disclose the government approval procedures for the gravel road that crosses the courtyard of his house. After receiving the plaintiff’s information disclosure application on July 7, 2014, the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff within the statutory period.

During the litigation, the defendant Yanwo Town Government issued an "Information Disclosure Reply" in response to the plaintiff's government information disclosure application in this case, and this court served it to the plaintiff on November 18, 2014.

This court held that: According to the provisions of Article 4 of the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Information Disclosure", the defendant Yanwo Town Government has the legal responsibility to disclose government information of this administrative agency. Article 21 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "For government information applied for disclosure, the administrative agency shall respond respectively according to the following circumstances: (1) If it is within the scope of disclosure, the applicant shall be informed of the methods and channels for obtaining the government information; (2) If it is within the scope of non-disclosure, the applicant shall be informed and the reasons shall be explained; (3) If it is not disclosed by the administrative agency according to law or the If the government information does not exist, the applicant shall be notified. If the government information disclosure agency can be determined, the name and contact information of the administrative agency shall be informed..." Article 24 stipulates: "If the administrative agency receives the government information disclosure application and is able to respond on the spot, it shall respond on the spot. If the administrative agency cannot respond on the spot, it shall respond within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the application..." In this case, the plaintiff Bo submitted a government information disclosure application to the defendant on July 3, 2014, and it was confirmed that the defendant received the application on July 7, 2014. However, the defendant did not provide any reply within the statutory response period. Since the defendant had already responded to the plaintiff’s application for government information disclosure during the litigation of this case, the judgment ordering it to perform its statutory duties of government information disclosure has no practical significance. In summary, based on the provisions of Article 57, paragraph 2, item (1) of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Enforcement of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the judgment is as follows:

It is confirmed that the defendant, Yanwo Town People's Government of Lijin County, failed to respond to the plaintiff Bo's government information disclosure application, which is illegal.

The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be borne by the People's Government of Yanwo Town, Lijin County, the defendant.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may file an appeal within 15 days from the date of delivery of the judgment, submit an appeal petition to this court, and submit copies of the appeal petition according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Dongying City, Shandong Province.

Chief Judge Song Yongjun

Judge Liu Weiwei

People's Assessor Li Bin

November 24, 2014

Secretary Xing Tao