On September 29, 2018, CBCGDF received an administration ruling from the People’s Court of Xixiangtang District of Nanning City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (hereinafter referred to as the Xixiangtang People’s Court), for the administrative lawsuit about CBCGDF’s suing the Department of Forestry of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region not replied on the various batches of pangolin rescue information in the past five years: the failure to meet the conditions for prosecution, did not conduct a substantive hearing, and procedurally rejected the prosecution. In this regard, CBCGDF has filed an appeal.
On October 9th, CBCGDF received the revised ruling of the Xixiangtang People’s Court. The administrative ruling issued in the previous paragraph was supplemented with “the typo in the text”. The corrections are as follows:
“In the administrative ruling of the plaintiff’s China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation dissatisfied with the defendant’s the Department of Forestry of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region information disclosure on September 15, 2018, there is a clerical error in the text, which should be corrected. The ruling is as follows:
In the original administrative ruling, “in accordance with ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China’” is now “in accordance with ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China’”.
At the same time, however, the obvious mistakes in the administrative ruling that CBCGDF received on September 29 also included, as shown on page 5, the Xixiangtang Court did not distinguish between the “plaintiff” and the “defendant”:
“…In view of the fact that the defendant did not provide any legal basis for the establishment of the ‘China Conservation Area for Pangolins”, the plaintiff did not support t the request. The defendant repeatedly filed applications for information disclosure with the plaintiff, including “the information of pangolins rescued in five years” to be aggregated and processed by administrative organs, “what kind of harm the virus will cause”, “the legal basis for…” and other inquires in the name of information disclosure…”.
(Photo: CBCGDF)
CBCGDF believes that such kind of mistake is not supposed to be made by a Court that is known for its fairness and rigor!
Original Chinese article:
http://www.cbcgdf.org/NewsShow/4857/6356.html