Securing effective Redressal to our issues / Complaints
/ Representations …
A satisfactory reply to complaints is of
fundamental importance in the Administration – Citizens Relationship.
Good governance signifies the way
an Administration ameliorates the standard of living of the members of its
society, by creating, and making available the basic amenities of life;
providing its people security of life and the opportunity to better their lot;
instills hope in their hearts for a promising future; affording participation
and capacity to influence, in the decision-making in public affairs; sustaining
a responsive judicial system which dispenses justice on merits in a fair,
unbiased and meaningful manner; and maintaining accountability and honesty in
each wing or functionary of the Government administration.
Forms of accountability may differ but
the basic idea remains the same that the holders of Public Office must be
publicly able to justify their exercise of power not only as legally valid but
also socially wise just and reasonable, chiefly designed to add something more
to the quality of life of the people.
Every Society & every
Individual Citizen has certain basic assumptions to take it for granted from
the State that-
(i) His Life
& Property will be protected and his liberty will be preserved;
(ii) He can
appropriate for his own use what he has created by his own labour and what he
has acquired under the existing economic order;
(iii) That
others will act with due care and will not cast upon him an unreasonable risk
of injury;
(iv) That others
will not commit any intentional aggression upon him;
(v) That people
with whom he deals will carry out their undertakings and will act in good
faith;
(vi) That he
will have security as a job holder;
(vii) That State
will bear the risk of unforeseen misfortune;
(viii) That
State will bear the burden of supporting him when he becomes aged;
(ix) That, therefore, whenever, there is breach of
aforesaid expectations, and the complaints is made to the “State”, it will be
duly replied. Article 12 of Constitution of India defines “State” as a every
Public functionary, whether State Govt / Central Govt / Municipal body /
Statutory bodies / Any instrumentality / Agency of the Govt etc.
However, the experience is
otherwise. Public authorities / Public officers, especially highly placed,
soaked in arrogance of their powers, generally do not bother themselves to the
complaint of Citizens, and their replies, whenever made, most of times, are
deliberately illogical and evasive. The experience is that the holders of
public offices treat the authority in their hands, as a ruler rather than one
in public service.
The Officials, in the usual spirit of
lawlessness, were often heard saying, (one may also call it various forms of
passionate corruption) in the words of Legal learned - Professor Upendra Baxi--
a)
As an Authority of Public Power, I have this and that power.
I exercise it in this or that manner because I so wish. The only good reason
which I exercise my power this or that manner is that I wish to exercise it in
this or that manner;
b)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may so act as to
favour some and disfavour others;
c)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may so act as to
give an impression that I am acting within my powers but in reality I may be
acting outside it;
d)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may decide by myself
what your rights and liabilities are without giving you any chance to be heard,
Or I may make your opportunity to be heard a meaningless ritual;
e)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may decide but
declines to let you know the reasons or grounds of my decisions or provide
reasons without being reasonable;
f)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may use my power to
help you only if I am gratified in cash or in kind;
g)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may choose to use my
power only after a good deal of delay and inconvenience to people;
h)
As an Authority of Public Power- I may just refuse to
exercise the powers I have regardless of my legal obligation to act and
regardless of social impact of my inaction.
In this essay, I seek to list some of the provisions
of law, and the judgments of the Apex court and High courts, which casts duty
upon the Public Authorities to “Respond”.
(1)
Apex
Court: In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India [(2005)
6 SCC 344] the SC has ruled that all public authorities / public officials must
make a reasoned reply to the Notices received by it. The Apex Court, among
other things, have observed and directed –
“…The Governments, government departments or
statutory authorities are defendants in a large number of Cases pending in
various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in
a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases
where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. It not only gives
rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to
the exchequer as well.
A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation
between the State and the citizens. In case a proper reply is sent, either the
claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy curtailed, or
the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State.
Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we
direct all Governments, Central or State or other authorities concerned,
whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent for
filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to nominate, within a period of
three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies
to notices under Section 80 or similar provisions are sent within the period
stipulated in a particular legislation.
The replies shall be sent after due application of
mind. Despite, if the court finds that either the notice has not been replied
to or the reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper
application of mind, the court shall ordinarily award heavy costs against the
Government and direct it to take appropriate action against the officer
concerned including recovery of costs from him.”.
(2)
Bombay
High Court – Failure to decide on representation – judicial notice of the fact
– paras 1, 4, 5; WP (C) 6731 / 2012 – date of decision – 21.12.2012.
Para 1: The
grievance made in this Petition is that the Collector, Pune has failed to
decide the representation made by the Petitioner on 28th June, 2011. We are
appalled to notice the laxity and indifference of the Collector in not
expediting the process of deciding the subject representation even after the
service of present Writ Petition. Admittedly, no decision has been communicated
to the Petitioner till date. Institution or pendency of this Petition was
certainly not an impediment for taking the decision. As a matter of fact, any
prudent officer would expedite the process as soon as he is served with the
copy of the Petition making grievance against him about his inaction. The
attitude of the officer in not deciding the representation, even after service
of this Writ Petition, is to say the least deplorable.
Para 4: Copy of
this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, with a hope that the Chief
Secretary would cause to issue instructions/circular, before 19th January,
2013, to all concerned departments and officers that, if any representation is
made, the same should be considered and final decision thereon must be taken
within the period specified in the earlier Government Circular No. SKN –
02/2010/P. No. 29/A2 dated 16th February, 2010 and the decision so taken should
be communicated to the party concerned within the same time.
Further, if any
Petition is filed before the Court, making grievance about the inaction of the
Authority, at least upon service of copy of such Petition, the concerned officer
must dispose of the representation within four weeks from receipt of notice of
such proceedings and communicate the decision to the concerned party as well as
report that fact to the office of the Government Pleader for bringing it to the
notice of the Court whenever the matter is taken up for hearing. It must be
made amply clear that failure to comply with this condition may entail in
initiating departmental action against the concerned officer and serious view
may be taken in the matter.
Para 5: This we
are required to observe because, on any given Court working day, the Court is
called upon to deal with substantial number of Writ Petitions, in respect of
the subject assigned to the concerned Division Bench, directing the Authorities
to dispose of the representations within specified time. This litigation is
certainly avoidable, if the representations were to be decided in a time bound
manner by the Authority and including to communicate the decision so taken to
the concerned parties soon thereafter.
(3)
Bombay
High Court: Registration of FIR – Police duty bound to reply to the
complainant, if no cognizable offence is made out – Paras 5, 7, 8; WP (Cri)
3386 2012 – date of decision – 15.10.2012.
Para 5. Large
number of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are being
filed in this Court making a grievance regarding failure to register the
offence in accordance with sub-section 1 of Section 154 of the said Code,
though either complaint in writing is lodged with the concerned police station
or the statement of the complainant is recorded by the Police. Such petitions
are being filed only because the concerned officer of the police do not care to
inform the complainants about the action taken on the complaints. In view of
the decision of the Full Bench, at highest and that also in exceptional and
rare cases, the concerned officer has time of two days to hold preliminary
enquiry. In all other cases, the officer is expected to act immediately. Only
in exceptional cases, he gets time of two days. The very fact that subsection
(3) of Section 154 gives a remedy to the person aggrieved by the failure on the
part of the officer to record the information shows that the duty is cast on
the police officer with whom the complaint is filed, to immediately inform the
complainant about the refusal to record the information referred to under
Subsection (1) of Section 154 of the said Code and officer in-charge of the
police station is duty bound to issue communication to the complainant of
refusal on his part to record information. Only if such information is
communicated to the complainant that he will be in a position to avail of the
remedy under Subsection (3) of Section 154 of the said Code.
7. We are of the
view that the Director General of Police should issue directions to all police
stations in the State directing the officers in-charge of the police station to
forthwith issue a communication to the complainants about refusal to record the
information in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 154. Appropriate time limit
which should be very short will have to be provided for issuing said
communication so that the very object of lodging complaint should not be
frustrated. If there is a gross delay in issuing communication, even the
remedies provided under the said Code in a given case may become redundant.
Such direction is required to be issued to ensure that complainants get
opportunity to avail of the remedies under the said Code.
8. Hence, we
dispose of the petition by passing following order :
(ii) We hereby direct the Director General of
Police to issue directions to all the police stations in the State as indicated
in the earlier part of this order.
(4)
Bombay
High Court: Deciding the representation within a reasonable time – directed the
Chief Secretary to issue Dept. Instructions Circular to all the govt. depts. –
and if WP is filed in respect of the concerned subject matter, and copy is
served, the concerned Authority must decide the representation within 4 weeks.
Circular No. SKN-02/2010 //PK-29/A-2 dated 16.02.2010. Also GR dated
18.01.2013. Prescribed time limit is 90 days. WP (C) No. 8348 / 2009 – date of
judgment – 25.01.2010.
We have come
across several writ petitions in which similar relief is claimed not only in
respect of inaction of the authority dealing with land acquisition proceedings,
but even other departments, such as Cooperative Department, Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishads and
the like. We find that substantial number of writ petitions, such as the
present petition, which are filed in this Court, are avoidable, if the
officials of the State were to discharge their statutory obligation of deciding
the representation within a reasonable time. In the present case, petitioner
has submitted her application almost one year back i.e. 5th January,
2009.
It is
unnecessary to underscore that the applicant would have legitimate expectation
of early redressal of her grievance. Indubitably, expeditious decision on the
representation or application is a right ingrained in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Even when no period of limitation to dispose of
representation / application is prescribed under statute, it has to be done
expeditiously within a reasonable time (see Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. V/s State
of Haryana - [ (1988) 3 S.C.C., 478 ]. That is the duty cast upon the
officials, for, existence of power to decide such application / representation
is coupled with duty to decide the same expeditiously.
It will not be
out of place to restate the legal position expounded by the Division Bench of
this Court in a recent decision in the case of Vaishali Atmaram Suryawanshi V/s
the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.7055/2009 decided on 16th
December, 2009. Notably, due to the inaction of the Authority (officials), not
only the citizen has to suffer the agony of uncertainty and delayed justice,
but at the same time the State exchequer is incurred on legal proceedings,
which is wholly avoidable.
In our view, the
Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra should issue appropriate
instructions or circular to all the concerned officials of the respective
departments, not only to one referred to above, but a general circular,
instructing all the Departments that if the officials are required to dispose
of any application or representation under the provisions of law, they shall do
so within a reasonable time and in any case not later than the time specified
in the said circular, failing which the concerned official will be held personally
responsible and may be proceeded for appropriate Departmental action including
for dereliction of duty. The Government Pleader assures to convey the
sentiments of the Court to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action,
as may be advised, and report compliance to the Court within four weeks from
today.
(5)
Bombay
High Court: Citizen Charter – the Court directed to affix Citizen Charter on
the Notice Board of all govt. depts., in compliance to the mandate of section 8
of the Maharashtra Govt. Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of
delay in discharge of official duties Act, 2005. Para 7; PIL No.50 / 2011 –
date of judgment – 21.12.2011.
Para 7: It is
important to note that provisions of Citizens Charter by the Administrative
Departments of the Government must be made known to the common man for whom it
is meant. It is no doubt true that Citizens Charter which was published, though
put on the website, however, in order to apprise the common man about the
Citizens Charter, we direct each Administrative Department of the State
Government to affix copy of Citizens Charter prepared by that Department on the
notice board to be placed on the front lobby of the Department or at such a
place which is easily visible to members of public who visit the Department.
The entire exercise must be completed by each Department within a period of two
months from today. We also expect the State Government to finalize the Rules to
carry out purpose of the Act without further delay and notify the same in the official
gazette.
(6)
Bombay
High Court: Online Publication of Approved Plans – the Court directed the State
to cause online publication of Approved Plans before allowing construction
activity – Para 30 – BHC – WP 4045 / 2005 – date of judgment – 10.12.2013.
(7)
Disposal of File
within 7 working days – An Office Memorandum was issued by Ministry of
Personnel, PG and Pension, Dept of Administrative Reforms and Public
Grievances, No. 46013 / 7 / 2000 / O & M, dated 08.09.2000 /, inter alia,
states that, as a general rule no official shall keep a case / file pending
with him / her for more than 7 working days, unless higher time limit is
prescribed for specific types of cases.
The Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedures, Thirteenth Edition, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. September, 2010 mandates on Page 39, paragraph 66. (www.darpg.gov.in) that proper replies to all communications from citizens should be sent within 30 days.
The Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedures, Thirteenth Edition, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. September, 2010 mandates on Page 39, paragraph 66. (www.darpg.gov.in) that proper replies to all communications from citizens should be sent within 30 days.
(8) Bombay High Court: Importance of serving of statutory Notice –
section 527 of MMC Act, 1888 and section 164 of MCS Act, 1960 – BHC – Noor
Mohd. Shami Shaikh Versus Maharashtra Housing & Development Board - 2014 (1) BCR 860
Para
8 Pre-suit statutory notice as required under Section 527 of MMC Act, as also
under Section 164 of MCS Act, 1960, required to be addressed to the Registrar
before initiating suit clearly served public purpose underlying the mandatory
provisions. When such notices are issued and served upon public authorities,
they get reasonable opportunity to avoid unnecessary litigation and also to
avoid unnecessary expenses which may have to be spent in a long drawn out legal
battle.
Object
of pre-suit statutory notice is to furnish an opportunity to the Public
Authority to know before hand about the prospective plaintiff, particulars of
his name, address, grievance, cause of action etc., so that Public Authority
can reconsider its legal position and may resolve to take steps to settle the
claim at pre-litigation stage. The provision is therefore intended to save the
valuable public time and money.
(9) Mahila Lok Divas at – Maha GR dated 04.03.2013
Taluka Level – 4th
Monday of every month
District Level –
3rd Monday of every month
Divisioner Level
– 2nd Monday of every month
Mantralaya – 1st
Monday of every month
(10) Constitution / Establishment of Police
Complaint Authority at the State and District level – Maha GR No.
PCA – 1013 / CR – 109 / Pol – 3 – dated 15.07.2013.
(11) Bombay High Court: Guidelines
laid down as in what manner the hearing is to be conducted and orders are to be
passed by Quasi-judicial authorities – Para 17 – BHC – (2009) 4 MhLJ 883.
Procedural
Guidelines for Quasi-Judicial Authority:
Para 17. This Court in exercise of
powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
prescribes the following procedure to be adopted by quasi-judicial authorities
including the Ministers, Secretaries, officials and litigants while hearing and
determining appeals, revisions, review applications and interim applications
etc.:
(1) Memo of appeal or revision, review
and or any application shall specifically mention under which enactment and/or
under what provisions of law the said appeal/ review/ revision or application
is filed.
(2) The appellant/ applicant shall give
a synopsis of concise dates and events along with the memo of appeal or revision.
(3) The appeal, revision and/or
application shall be filed within a period stipulated under the law governing
the subject from the receipt of the order/ decision which is impugned in the
above matter. In the event of delay, it should only be entertained along with
application for condonation of delay.
(4) At the time of presentation of the
appeal, review or revision, the applicant shall, if, filed in person, establish
his identity by necessary documents or he shall file proceedings through authorized
agent, and/or advocate.
(5) The application shall be accompanied
by sufficient copies for every opponents/ respondents and also supply 2 extra
copies for the authorities.
(6) For issuance of summons to the
opponents/ respondents, court fees/ postal stamps of sufficient amount shall be
affixed on the application form/ memo of appeal or revision as the case may be.
(7) In addition to service through the
authority, appellant/ applicant may separately send the additional copies to
each of the opponents/ respondents by registered post acknowledgement due and
may file affidavit of service along with evidence of despatch. The postal and
acknowledgment alone should be treated as evidence of service in the event of
service through postal authority.
(8) In the event of an urgency of
obtaining an interim relief like stay, injunction/ other interim order or
direction or status-quo etc, a specific case of urgency should be made out in
the application, which the authority may entertain subject to the brief reasons
recorded. The said order shall also be communicated immediately to all the
effected persons. The proof of timely despatch of the Registered A.D.s and all
the acknowledgments shall be separately maintained.
(9) If there is real urgency, the
concerned authority may grant ex parte interim/ ad-interim relief for
the reasons to be recorded for a particular period only within which time the
service on the concerned opponents/ respondents shall be effected. Appellant/
applicant should file affidavit of service, if such party requires early
hearing or continuation for interim relief or of an appeal, revision or review.
(10) The competent authority shall also
communicate the next date of hearing to all the parties along with time and
place and shall, as far as possible, adhere to the said date and time of
hearing.
(11) The concerned official in every
department should be asked to remain present at the time of hearing and assist
the concerned authority in the matter.
(12) Reasonable sufficient time be
provided between the date of receipt of notice and the actual date of hearing.
If any party is unable to remain present at the time of hearing for a
sufficient cause, one further opportunity should be given to such party for
hearing.
(13)
The authority hearing quasi-judicial matters shall duly fix a date, time and
venue for such hearing. Such authority shall refrain from interacting with
third party during the course of hearing either in person or on phone and shall
not do any act which would tend to affect or prejudice fair hearing.
(14)
A speaking order shall be passed by the authority hearing the matter as early
as possible after the hearing is concluded and, as far as possible, within a
period of four to eight weeks from the conclusion of the hearing, on the basis
of the record before it as well as the submissions made at the hearing. The
order must contain reasons in support of the order.
(15)
The authority shall not receive information or documents after the hearing is
concluded and/or shall not pass the speaking order on the basis of such
documents and/or information unless such material is brought to the notice of
the parties to the proceedings following rules of natural justice.
(16) The order passed by the
quasi-judicial authority on the hearing shall be forthwith communicated to all
the parties by Registered A.D.
(17) No application or request or prayer
from the political worker, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament
or third party shall be entertained in the quasi-judicial proceedings unless
such person is a party respondent or intervenor in the proceedings.
(18) The order pronounced shall be
communicated to the parties immediately.
(19) Record of hearing shall be
meticulously maintained in a separate Roznama.
(20) The notings of concerned officials/
law assistants to assist the authority shall include only content of facts and
legal provisions along with case laws, if any.
(21) The notings made by the law
officials/ concerned officials shall not be in the form of order.
(12)
In the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India [2008 (2) BCR 387 : 2007 (6) MhLj 146], the
Bombay High Court have held that the Public authorities / persons may be held
guilty of contempt of the Court, if, in the regular discharge of their duties,
they knowingly disregard the law laid down by the said Court. By virtue of
this judgment, a private individual / private entity may also be compelled to
adhere to the law laid down by the High courts / Apex court.
It was a case where, despite being specifically brought to the
knowledge of the law being laid down by the Bombay High Court, the Public
officer acted in breach of the law laid down; and the High Court, in the Writ
jurisdiction, initiated Contempt proceedings against the said officer. The
Court held that –
(a) It
is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before
the Court
was or was not a party, but if a law on a
particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be followed by
all authorities and tribunals in the State;
(b)
The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and
subordinate tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the
State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceedings or deciding on
the rights involved in such a proceeding;
(c)
If inspite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been
pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in
utter disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to
be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount
to civil contempt as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
I am hasten to add here the
critical observation of the Apex court in the case of State Of Uttaranchal
Versus Sunil Kumar Vaish – [(2011) 8 SCC 670] Para 18 and 19
Para 18 Judicial
determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of
adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which
happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic
requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they
can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law
and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the
society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of
legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal
procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly
considered and decided.
I, therefore, say that whenever any representation / complaint is being made to any Public Authority / Public official, the aforesaid relevant and applicable judgment may also be expressly brought to the knowledge of the Authority concerned, thereby securing an speedy and reasoned reply.
And,
in case, if the concerned public authority choose to remain silent on the
received complaint,
or reply in interplay of words, than, a simple letter may be recorded to the
concerned High Court / Apex court, requesting it to take Su Moto cognizance
(action on its own) of the contempt of the order of the court, being committed
by the concerned authority / official; and the copy of said letter may also be
sent to the concerned authority / official; and thereafter, after sometime, say
about, expiry of about 30 days, an RTI may be filed with the concerned High
court / Apex court, requesting it to furnish the details of action taken by it,
on your said letter. The draft of said letter to the High court / Apex court
and draft of RTI Application is annexed herewith. The Apex court and every High
court have prescribed the form in which RTI Application can be made to it.
Further, the
complainant may also file a Writ Petition before concerned High court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the concerned public
authority / official, and praying the court to direct the concerned public
authority / official to make a “Reasoned reply” to the Petitioner’s complaint /
Notice; and the reply shall be made in accordance with the law laid down by the
Apex court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India
[(2005) 6 SCC 344]; with a further prayer that reasonable and deterrent cost
must also be imposed on the concerned authority / official, for his / its
willful failure in making a due reply;
It may further
be prayed that reply of public authority / official, shall deal with the
substantial points which has been raised therein in the said complaint / Notice
and shall cover other relevant points; and eschew irrelevancies and reply shall
demonstrate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in
controversy and that decisions of the public authority / official on the issue
raised in the said complaint / Notice have been reached according to law.
It may further
be prayed to initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned Public
official, as laid down in Bombay High Court ruling stated hereinabove.
If Writ is filed
for this limited purpose, than it may be disposed of in two to three hearings;
and, if any such order is passed, than that public authority / official is
bound to make a reasoned and proper reply, in a time bound manner.
However, all
persons, aggrieved by the acts and omissions of public authorities / officials,
may not have easy access to the High Courts, leave alone Apex court. Therefore,
a Civil Suit for mandatory Injunction u/s 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, may
be filed before the District Court / City Civil Court, seeking necessary
reliefs.
The law declared
by Apex court, by virtue of Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India,
is binding on all public authorities / judicial authorities, and directions so
given by Apex court becomes the law of the land. And therefore, the City Civil
courts, District courts, shall also have the jurisdiction to direct the public
authority / official to give proper and reasoned reply to the Notice issued to
it; with a further relief praying that “A Reference shall be made to the High
Court concerned to initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned Public
authority / official”. However, while filing this Suit, the mandatory Notice
provided u/s 80 may not be given, for, the relief in the Suit is claimed on the
premise that concerned public authority / official is not making a reply to the
Notice, sent to it u/s 80.
I finally
seek to recall an historic incident of Indian freedom struggle, occasioned with
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (His Journey towards Mahatma). In the year 1893,
when in South Africa, while holding a First Class Compartment ticket and
traveling in, Gandhi was thrown out of the train, for in those times “Blacks”
were not allowed to travel in the First Class Compartment, notwithstanding they
hold a valid ticket. It was 9.00 in the chill night. That designated “Black”
sent a Telegram to the General Manager of the Railways and registered his
complaint. The Complaint of that designated “Black” was attended, forthwith, and
the General Manager instructed the Station master to secure that complainant
reaches his destination safely. Complainant was accommodated in the very next
morning train to his destination.
And
here, in the era of INDEPENDENCE and 21st Century of modern democracy, we have
Citizens of Sovereign India, of whose complaints are ordinarily attended with avoidance,
annoyance and sometimes with hostility.
Complaints to public authorities /
officials is the most legitimate incident of a democracy, and giving of
satisfactory reply, is a healthy discipline for all who exercise powers over
others.
Before I conclude, I must sincerely
thanks Mr. Jagdish Gai, who takes great pain, everyday, in retrieving from Newspapers
etc., the important rulings of the Apex court / High Court / Consumer Courts /
GRs / Notifications which are announced every day, and generously shares with
the community at large. Many of the Bombay High Court rulings stated
hereinbefore were furnished by him, and I have merely arranged them in proper
fashion.
Pls
find files attached –
1.
Draft
of section 80 Notice;
2.
Draft
of Letter to Apex court / High Court, requesting it to take Su Moto cognizance
of contempt committed by the concerned public official of the concerned public
authority;
3.
Draft
of RTI Application;
For other Legal
options, please see point Nos.11 and 12 of the Legal Prescriptions (Index)
Sandeep Jalan
Advocate.
Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Thank you.
Comments