[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative review of the disclosure of government information. Li Shuai, a villager of A County in Jiamusi City, entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle his land rights issuesYu DawaiProtection of rights. With the lawyer's assistance, Yut submitted the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" by mail, requesting the disclosure of the filing information of the "Rural Land Contract Management Rights Certificate" in 2007 and the filing materials of the contract. The mail was signed for receipt on July 2, 2025, but the XX Town Government failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days. Yut, acting on behalf of A County People's Government, filed an administrative reconsideration request, asking to confirm the illegal non-response and order the government to respond. The reconsideration authority determined that the town government failed to perform its statutory duties and, in accordance with Article 66 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law", ordered it to perform its response duties within the time limit. Core disputes: Whether the late response constitutes omission of action and whether the negligence of the guard can exempt from liability. Applicable laws: Articles 33 and 36 of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of the People's Republic of China"; Article 66 of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China".

I. Review of the Case

The request for disclosure of government information fell on deaf ears, and the town government just said it was due to "the negligence of the guard" and refused to respond? Li Shuai, a villager of Advancing Village, XX Town, A County, Jiamusi City, entrusted others to handle the issue of land rights for himYu DawaiProtection of rights. To verify the materials of the rural land contractual management rights obtained in the early years, with the assistance of Attorney Yu, Li Shuai mailed the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" to the XX Town Government via EMS, requesting the disclosure of two items: firstly, the filing information of the "Rural Land Contractual Management Right Certificate" issued by the A County Government to Li Shuai in 2007; secondly, the filing materials of the "Rural Land Contractual Management Contract" signed by the Democratic Village Village Committee and Li Shuai. The mail was signed for receipt on July 2, 2025, but until the expiration of the statutory 20 working days, the town government still failed to make any response. Attorney Yu believes that this behavior constitutes administrative omission and violates the right to information and procedural rights of the parties involved.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Does the town government's failure to respond within the time limit constitute a failure to perform its statutory duties?If the government fails to respond within the time limit stipulated in the "Regulations on the Openness of Government Information" after receiving the request, it constitutes administrative omission of duty.
  • Focus Two: Can "the negligence of the guard's mailroom" be used as a reason for exemption from liability?The administrative authorities shall not shirk their statutory obligations to disclose information by citing internal negligence as an excuse.
  • Focus 3: Whether the telephone response complies with the statutory form requirements.Simply providing a screenshot of the call log cannot prove that the form of the response content is legal.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the applicant) claims that:Li Shuai argued that the town government failed to respond within the statutory time limit after receiving the application, which constituted a failure to perform its statutory duties and infringed his right to information and the subsequent process of safeguarding his rights. He requested that the court confirm the illegal act and order the town government to respond within a specified time limit.

The respondent (the town government) argued that:It was claimed that due to the "negligence of the guard's mailroom", the mail was not handled in time. It was not until August 27, 2025 that the "Notice of Reply" was received, but the original document could not be found. The client has already responded to the attorney by phone, but failed to provide effective evidence.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Yu DayiIt was pointed out in the application that: the respondent failed to reply within the time limit prescribed by the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information" after receiving the application, which constituted a failure to perform its statutory duties; the disclosure of government information is an important way for citizens to obtain information according to law, and administrative organs have no right to shirk their responsibilities by citing "internal negligence"; the failure to act directly affects Li Shuai's subsequent rights protection, and it should be corrected according to law.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Government of A County, after review, held that according to Articles 33 and 36 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, the respondent has the statutory duty to respond within the legal time limit but failed to fulfill it; although it provided screenshots of the phone call records, it could not prove that it had responded to the applicant's request. In accordance with Article 66 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, it decided to order the respondent to perform its statutory duties in accordance with the law within the prescribed time limit in response to the applicant's request for disclosure of government information. Ultimately, this prompted the town government to fulfill its obligation to disclose information in accordance with the law, laying a solid foundation for Li Shuai's subsequent rights protection in the process of land expropriation and demolition.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Yu DayiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101201010292290, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. In cases of land expropriation and demolition and land rights disputes, government information disclosure is the first step to obtaining key evidence and a "sword for protecting rights". Applicants should accurately grasp the procedures and time limits under the guidance of professional lawyers to avoid creating hidden dangers for subsequent rights protection due to improper operation.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Government Information Disclosure Review Cases

  1. Q: What should I do if the town government refuses to respond to my request for information disclosure?
    A:An administrative review can be initiated after the expiration of the statutory time limit, to confirm the failure to act and order a response.
  2. Q: Can "the guard's negligence" exempt one from the obligation to respond?
    A:No. Administrative organs are not allowed to shirk their statutory obligation to disclose information by citing internal negligence as an excuse.
  3. Q: What is the deadline for replying to requests for information disclosure?
    A:According to Article 33 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, if the reply cannot be given on the spot, the reply shall be made within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the application, and the time limit may be extended by no more than 20 working days.
  4. Q: Does a phone response count as a valid response?
    A:It must comply with the statutory form and content. If the call record alone cannot prove that the response is legal, it shall not be deemed as having been fulfilled.
  5. Q: What is the use of information disclosure in safeguarding rights during the expropriation and demolition process?
    A:It is a key way to obtain compensation schemes and ownership evidence, and is often the first step in subsequent rights protection.