What is the mode of information disclosure case of administrative appeal?

1. What is the mode of the administrative appeal information disclosure case? Administrative Appellant: XXX, male, born on, legal representative on, and mayor. The appellant refused to accept the administrative ruling (20 14)No. ××× of the People's Court of Longmatan District, Luzhou City, and filed an appeal with our hospital to cancel the administrative ruling (20 14)No.. XX 2014 made by the people's court on XX, XX, XX; 2. Request to order the people's court to continue hearing the case of the appellant v. the appellee's government information disclosure omission; The litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the defendant. Facts and reasons: The appellant filed an application for disclosure of government information with the people's government of XX Town by mail on XX, 2065438+XX, 2004, requesting disclosure of relevant government information in written form. Xx Town People's Government did not make any reply after receiving the application for government information disclosure. The appellant refused to accept it and applied for administrative reconsideration to the people's government of XX District on XX, 2065438+2004, but did not get any reply. The appellant brought a lawsuit to the people's court according to law. Longmatan District People's Court made an administrative ruling (20 14) Ma Long Xing Chu ZiNo.. It was made on ×××× 2004, dismissing the appellant's prosecution ruling. The appellant received the administrative ruling on February 2014,65438. At present, the appellant believes that the appellee ignored the appellant's request for government information disclosure, which is a serious failure to perform legal duties. The court of first instance did not examine the illegal facts, but blocked the appellant's appeal, which seriously violated the appellant's basic litigation rights. The reasons are as follows: 1. The appellee did not give any oral or written reply to the appellant's application for government information disclosure, and his disregard for civil rights was obviously an illegal act that seriously failed to perform the statutory duties of government information disclosure. The court of first instance rejected the appellant's lawsuit, and the application of law was seriously wrong. Article 21 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information stipulates that "the administrative organ shall reply to the government information applied for disclosure according to the following circumstances: (1) If it belongs to the scope of disclosure, it shall inform the applicant of the ways and means to obtain the government information; (2) If it falls within the scope of non-disclosure, it shall inform the applicant and explain the reasons; (three) if the administrative organ refuses to disclose it according to law or the government information does not exist, it shall inform the applicant; If the government information disclosure organ can be determined, it shall inform the applicant of the name and contact information of the administrative organ and the provisions of Article 24. "If an administrative organ receives an application for government information disclosure and can reply on the spot, it shall reply on the spot. If the administrative organ cannot give a reply on the spot, it shall give a reply within 15 working days from the date of receiving the application; If it is necessary to extend the reply period, it shall be approved by the person in charge of the government information disclosure work agency, and inform the applicant that the longest extension of the reply period shall not exceed 15 working days. " According to the above provisions, after receiving the appellant's application for information disclosure, the appellee shall inform the appellant on the spot or within legal working days and explain the reasons; If the administrative organ refuses to disclose or the government information does not exist according to law, it shall inform the appellant. If the government information can be determined, the appellant shall be informed of the name and contact information of the administrative organ. In other words, the appellee should at least give the appellant an answer (on the spot or within legal working days), a handling opinion or even a phone call, which is considered to be the most basic obligation to the rights of ordinary people. But unfortunately, the appellee turned a blind eye to the appellant's application for government information disclosure, and even did not communicate and inform by telephone. This is an act of ignoring civil rights and trampling on the law, which seriously violates the appellant's right to know and other legitimate rights and interests. 2. The information applied by the appellant complies with the law and obviously belongs to government information. The court of first instance failed to correctly ascertain the facts and apply the law, and its ruling of inadmissibility was seriously wrong. In this case, the facts and legal basis of the appellant's application for public compulsory destruction of the appellant's cultivated land and fruit trees on ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× To sum up, even if the information applied by the appellant does not belong to the appellee's production or acquisition, nor is it recorded or kept, the plaintiff should be informed of the reasons for not making it public orally or in writing, which conforms to the legislative spirit of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information and effectively embodies the proper practice of governing for the people. Its failure to reply is obviously inaction and a serious violation of the law. The information applied by the appellant is indeed the scope that the appellee should disclose. The court of first instance dealt with it rashly, endorsed the government's illegal acts, and rejected the appellant's legal and reasonable prosecution, which made it difficult for the appellant to understand and accept, and ran counter to the current concept of governing the country according to law and building a government ruled by law. Therefore, the appellant filed an appeal in accordance with the Regulations of People's Republic of China (PRC) Municipality on the Openness of Government Information, the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court Municipality on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Government Information Disclosure, requesting your hospital to accept it according to law and support the appellant's claim. To the Appellant of the Intermediate People's Court: 2065438+April 2004 To sum up, although the administrative appeal is not only faced with the administrative organ of the first instance, but also with the court that accepts the case, as long as the appeal grounds put forward by citizens are completely up to standard, legal and reasonable, the correct judgment of the second instance can generally be obtained, and the premise of this result is the need to submit a standardized administrative appeal.