28. Writ Petition Against Out of Turn Hearing (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WP(C) NO. 183 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

R.K. JAIN …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S .No Particulars Page No

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Court Fee

Proof of Service/ Notice of Motion

Urgent Application

Memo of Parties

List of Dates and Events

Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, with affidavit.

Annexure P-1 - Copy of norms set-up in terms

of section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the RTI Act, 2005 for

out of turn hearing.

Annexure P-2 - Copy of the Notification dated

13.02.2008 issued by CIC.

Annexure P-3 - Copy of the minutes of the

meeting dated 13.12.2012 held by full bench of

CIC.

Annexure P-4 – Copy of order dated

13.05.2013 in case No.

CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 passed by CIC along

with its status report for CIC website.

Annexure P-5 – Copy of order dated

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

30.05.2013 in case No.

CIC/AD/C/2013/001439 passed by CIC along

with its status report for CIC website.

Annexure P-6 – Copy of RTI reply dated

15.10.2013 by CIC


31.10.2013 by CIC


07.10.2013 by CIC

Annexure P-9 – Copy of representation dated

28.10.2013 to Hon‟ble Chief Information

Commissioner in CIC by the Petitioner.

Annexure P-10 – Copy of report dated

22.11.2013 submitted by the Deputy Registrar

of CIC, in respect of RTI Application of the

Petitioner.

Annexure P-11 – Copy of sample copy of data

obtained from the website of the CIC showing

Honourable Chief Information Commissioner

has decided number of cases within 2 to 4

weeks of their filing.

Annexure P-12 – Copy of sample copy of data

obtained from the website of the CIC showing

cases of Petitioner is pending since year 2012.

Vakalatnama

PETITIONER

Through

J.K. Mittal/Varun Gaba

(J.K. Mittal and Company)

Advocates and Legal Consultants

Place: New Delhi 57, East End Enclave, Delhi-110092

Date: 06.01.2014 Ph.22056635,22460171,72

Email:[email protected]



WP(C) NO……………..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


NOTICE OF MOTION

To,

The D.L.A. LIT. SEC.,

Union of India

High Court of Delhi. …RESPONDENT No. 1

AND

The Registrar

Central Information Commission

Room No. 205, 2nd

Floor, B-wing, August Kranti Bhavan

Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 …RESPONDENT No. 2

Sir,

Please take this Notice the abovementioned matter is likely to be

listed for the admission on. 7th

Day of January, 2014.

This is for your information.

Thanking you Yours sincerely

J.K.Mittal/Varun Gaba



Counsels for the Petitioner

57, East End Enclave

Place: New Delhi Delhi-110092

Date: 06.01.2014 Ph.22056635,22460171,72




WP(C) NO……………..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


URGENT APPLICATION

To

The Registrar,

High Court of Delhi

New Delhi- 110003

Sir,

Kindly treat the accompanying Writ Petition as urgent one as per the

High Court Rules and Orders.

The ground of urgency is in the accompanied Writ Petition.

Prayed accordingly

Yours sincerely







Date: 06.01.2014 Ph.22056635,22460171,72




WP(C) NO……………..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


MEMO OF PARTIES

R.K. Jain

Editor, Excise Law Times

1512 B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg

New Delhi-110003 ….. PETITIONER

Versus

Union of India

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Through its Secretary,

North Block, New Delhi – 110001 ... RESPONDENT NO. 1

Central Information Commission

Through its Secretary,

2nd

Floor

B-wing, August Kranti Bhavan

Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-11006 ... RESPONDENT NO. 2







Date: 06.01.2014 Ph.22056635,22460171,72


SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The very objective of the RTI Act to bring transparency, accountability

of state instrumentality is being defeated because of failure of

administrative machinery in the Central information commission (CIC),

which is an Apex body under the RTI Act. In the CIC, the large numbers

of cases are being listed and heard out of turn in irregular manner and

without any judicial orders and in violation of norms set by itself under

the RTI Act, 2005. On the one hand, the Citizens like present petitioner

are awaiting for their turn for the last several years for the cases to be

heard and disposed of by CIC on the other hand there are instances when

the cases are being decided on the same day when these are being filed

and even the instances have come to the notice that when the case is

decided even before these cases were registered by the registry of CIC.

The petitioner‟s cases have also not been hard and decided, which are

pending for the last 2 years.

In the CIC after filing of the appeals/complained cases, it takes about 2-3

months for getting such appeal or complaint registered/ numbered and as

per the normal procedures, no case can be heard without it registration.

As on 22.11.2103, the Appeals/ Complaints pending for registration

(numbering) is 3019, which is also causing delay, whereas RTI Acts

aiming to provide expeditious time bound remedy. Such a long delay

even for granting registration (numbering) for the cases filed before the

CIC can only be attributed to the malfunctioning or non-monitoring by

administrative machinery within the CIC.

The RTI Act, 2005 provides different timelines for processing of RTI

application and providing of information, disposal of appeals by the First

Appellate Authority which varies from 5 days to 30 days. However no

time limit has been prescribed for the disposal of cases by the Honorable

CIC, and there is unreasonable delay in disposal of cases by CIC is

defeating the very object of the RTI Act which envisages from making

available the information to the citizens at the earliest and maximum in

30 days

Therefore, the Petitioner seeks indulgences of this Hon‟ble Court.

DATE PARTICULARS

2006 Norms declared on CIC website under section 4(b)(iv) of

the RTI Act, for generally hearing the appeals / complaints

in CIC according to “First-Come-First Serve basis” and for

according priority to cases of Senior Citizens and

Handicapped Persons but subject to reasoned orders.

13.02.2008 Notifications issued for according priority hearing to

Senior Citizens and Handicapped Persons and laying down

criteria thereof.

13.12.2011 CIC in its Full bench meeting held on 13.12.2011 under

section 12(4) of the RTI Act, decided to give priority

hearing only to registered cases by reason order to Senior

citizens, handicapped persons or cases involving larger

public interest.

13.05.2012 The Complaint case No. CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 was

decided by CIC by order dated 13.05.2013, which was

even registered/ numbered subsequently on 17.05.2013

(filed on 10.05.2013) as per details available on CIC

website.

30.05.2013 The Complaint case No. CIC/AD/C/2013/001439 was

decided by CIC by order dated 30.05.2013, which was

even registered/ numbered on 31.05.2013 (filed on

30.05.2013) as per details available on CIC website.

15.10.2013 CIC in Reply dated 15.10.2013 to RTI

Applicant dated 16.09.2013 of the Petitioner has admitted

that 6 Complaint Petitions filed on 11.04.2012 by the

Petitioner were diarized on 12.04.2013, but no status

available with CIC. In subsequent reply dated 31.10.2013,

it was informed that such petitions could not be located,

accordingly, as requested, the petitioner submitted the

copy of all such petitions. The CIC by letter dated

07.11.2013 informed to the petitioner about the registration

number of all such petitions.

28.10.2013 The Petitioner moved a representation to Hon‟ble Chief

Information Commissioner in CIC, despite pendency of

large number of cases of year 2011, the cases filed in the

year 2013 are being decided within same month and

submitted copy of such orders, in respect of some of such

complaints which all were decided on October 24, 2013,

by separate orders for different subject matter, which were

registered in September/October 2013. The Petitioner in

the said representation pointed to that such out of turn

hearing is highly discriminatory as well as against the

norms set up the CIC itself. The Petitioner also sought

intervention of the Hon‟ble Chief Information

Commissioner giving necessary directions to all concerned

to list/decide cases according to their turn unless priority is

accorded to any case by written order of concerned

Information Commissioner, but receive no response.

22.11.2013 As per Deputy Registrar of CIC letter dated 22.11.2013

number of Appeals/ Complaints pending for registration

(numbering) as on 22.11.2103 is 3019. In the CIC after

filing of the appeals/complained cases, it takes about 2-3

months for getting such appeal or complaint registered.

25.12.2013 The petitioner took the data from the CIC website showing

that number of appeals filed by the petitioner before the

CIC which was registered between March 2012 to

September 2012 are pending for hearing so as the appeals

and complaints cases filed by the other citizens.

06.01.2014 Aggrieved by the action/inaction of the Respondents, the

Petitioner approaches this Hon‟ble Court by way of present

writ petition.

Hence, the present writ petition.



WP(C) NO……………..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING DIRECTION TO

THE RESPONDENTS FOR SETTING UP AN APPROPRIATE

MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR ENSURING REGISTRATION

CASE FILED BEFORE CIC IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS FILING

AND LISTING AND HEARING OF CASES STRICTLY

ACCORDING TO THEIR SENIORITY UNLESS OUT OF TURN

LISTING AND HEARING GRANTED BY RECORDING REASON

IN WRITING BY APPROPRIATE BENCH OF CIC AS WELL AS

PROVIDING THE TIME-LIMIT BY WHICH THE CIC SHOULD

ENDEAVOR TO DISPOSE OF THE CASES WITHIN 3 MONTHS

FROM THE DATE OF ITS FILING. THE PETITIONER ALSO

SEEKS DIRECTIONS TO LIST AND HEARING OF HIS CASES

PENDING OVER SIX MONTHS.

TO

THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HIGH

COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

A. That the Petitioner through the present writ petition seeking

direction to the Respondents for setting up an appropriate

mechanism in place for ensuring registration case filed before CIC

immediately after its filing and listing and hearing of cases strictly

according to their seniority unless out of turn listing and hearing

granted by recording reason in writing by appropriate Bench of

CIC as well as providing the time-limit by which the CIC should

endeavor to dispose of the cases within 3 months from the date of

its filing. The petitioner also seeks directions to list and hearing of

his cases pending over six months.

B. That the Petitioner is filing present Writ Petition on the basis of

following QUESTIONS OF LAW as mentioned below:

1. Whether in the circumstances of case, the Center Information

Commission (CIC), New Delhi is right in listing and hearing of

on priory basis, even without registration, without recording

any reason for out of turn hearing and disregarding their own

norms?

2. Whether CIC is right in hearing and deciding the unregistered

cases?

3. Whether in the circumstances of case, the Center Information

Commission (CIC), New Delhi is right in for non-registration/

numbering of cases for several months from the date of their

filing?

4. Whether keeping in view the object and time line prescribed

under RTI Act, CIC is right for not deciding the cases for years

together as no time line prescribed for CIC for disposal of their

cases?

5. Whether CIC is right for not listing and hearing the cases of the

petitioner which are pending since year 2012?

Brief Facts:

1. That the Petitioner is the Editor of Excise Law Times and has been

working on improving the status of the Tribunals and other

Institutions in the country. He has been recognised as a whistle-

blower by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated

13.08.2010. In the PIL (W.P.No. 8688/2011) filed by the Petitioner,

this Hon‟ble Court directed for appointment of Information

Commissioners and notifying recruitment rules for the supportive

staff in the Central Information Commission within a time bound

schedule. The Petitioner has authored numerous Books on indirect

taxation with several of them running over 50 editions and some of

which have also been prescribed for professional courses by highly

reputed statutory institutions.

2. That the Right to Information, 2005 is enacted to provide citizen

information from Public Authority to bring transparency,

accountability of state instrumentality and to contain corruption. The

Petitioner is a public spirited person, an active RTI activist and to

bring transparency, accountability of state instrumentality and to

contain corruption, frequently collects information under the RTI

Act from various departments. Therefore, the petitioner has also

filed number of appeals and complaints before the Honorable

Central Information Commission on the refusal of providing

information by the various departments.

3. That the RTI Act, 2005 provides different timelines for processing

of RTI application and providing of information, disposal of appeals

by First Appellate Authority. These timelines are as under:-

Subject/Action Time limit Section of the RTI

Act, 2005

Transfer of application

when information is

held by other public

authorities

5 days. Proviso to Section

6(3)

Notice when

information relates to

third party

5 days Section 11 (1)

Response of the Third

Party

10 days. Section 11(2)

Providing of

information under RTI

i) 30 days

ii) 40 days

when Third

Party

Notice

issued.

iii) 48 hours

when Life

and Liberty

of citizen

involved.

Section 7(1) read

with section 7(3)

Appeal against refusal

to provide information

or failure to respond to

RTI application

(Deemed refusal)

30 days from

the date of

receipt of the

order/ filing of

application.

Section 19(1)

Disposal of appeal by

First Appellate

Authority

30 days + 15

days extension

(total period 45

days)

Section 19(1) & (6)

Appeal To CIC By RTI

Applicant

90 days Section 19(3)

Disposal of

appeal/complaint by

CIC

No time limit Section 19(3) and

Section 18

4. That as available on the CIC website, in terms of section 4(1)(b)(iv)

of the RTI Act, CIC set up norms for discharging of functions in

CIC, and accordingly it was decided that the Appeals/Complaints in

CIC to be generally heard according to first come first served basis,

and priority hearing for Senior citizens or handicapped persons may

be given on case to case basis. It was also recognized that CIC has

responsibility of speedy disposal of Appeals/Complaints. However,

norms are not being followed in practice. Copy of norms set-up in

terms of section 4(1)(b)(iv) of the RTI Act, 2005 for priority hearing

is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-1.

5. That the Notification dated 13.02.2008 was issued by CIC that

Appeals/Complaints filed by Senior Citizens and handicapped

persons shall be taken up by the commission on priority basis. Copy

of the Notification dated 13.02.2008 issued by CIC is enclosed

herewith marked as Annexure P-2.

6. That CIC in its Full bench meeting held on 13.12.2011 under section

12(4) of the RTI Act, priority hearing to be accorded to Senior

citizens, handicapped persons or involve larger public interest, but

such priority will be part of judicial decision by recording reasons

for according such priority hearing. It was also decided that such

priority hearing only shall be for „registered cases‟. Copy of the

minutes of the meeting dated 13.12.2012 held by full bench of CIC

is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-3.

7. That the Complaint case No. CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 was decided

by CIC by order dated 13.05.2013, which was even registered/

numbered on 17.05.2013 as per details available on CIC website,

even though date of filing was recorded on 10.05.2013. Thus, CIC

decided the case, 4 days before the date of its registration i.e. an

unregistered case was decided within 3 days of its filing even though

it was registered (numbered) on 17.05.2013 i.e. after the decision on

13.05.2013. Copy of order dated 13.05.2013 in case No.

CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 passed by CIC along with its status report

for CIC website is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-4.

8. That the Complaint case No. CIC/AD/C/2013/001439 was decided

by CIC by order dated 30.05.2013, which was even registered/

numbered on 31.05.2013 as per details available on CIC website,

even though date of filing was recorded on 30.05.2013. Thus, CIC

decided the case, 1 day before the date of its registration i.e. an

unregistered case was decided, and case was decided on the same

date of its filing. It is surprising that on the one hand CIC website

has shown date of receipt of such complaint case on 30.05.2013..

Copy of order dated 30.05.2013 in case No. CIC/AD/C/2013/001439

passed by CIC along with its status report for CIC website is

enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-5.

9. That CIC in respect of RTI Applicant dated 16.09.2013 filed by the

Petitioner, has given following information/ reply:

(A) CIC in their Reply dated 15.10.2013 has admitted that 6

Complaint Petitions filed by the Petitioner on 11.04.2012

were diarized on 12.04.2013, but no status of these 6

Complaint Petitions of the Petitioners are available with CIC,

and these were reported to be missing and no registered even

after expiry of 1½ years. Copy of reply dated 15.10.2013 by

CIC is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-6.

(B) CIC in their subsequent reply dated 31.10.2013 to said RTI

application, it was informed that such petitions could not be

located and the petitioner was requested to make available

copy of each such petitions with all relevant documents for

necessary action, accordingly the petitioner submitted the

copy of all such petitions. Copy of reply dated 31.10.2013 by

CIC is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-7.

(C) CIC in their another reply by letter dated 07.11.2013 informed

to the petitioner about the registration number of all such

petitions. Thus the petitioner complained cases of April 2012,

were finally got registered only in November 2013 i.e. after

nearly 20 months. Copy of reply dated 07.10.2013 by CIC is


10. That the Petitioner moved a representation dated 28.10.2013 to

Hon‟ble Chief Information Commissioner in CIC, despite pendency

of large number of cases of year 2011, the cases filed in the year

2013 are being decided within same month and submitted copy of

such orders, in respect of some of such complaints which all were

decided on October 24, 2013, by separate orders for different subject

matter, which were registered in September/October 2013. The

Petitioner in the said representation pointed to that such out of turn

hearing is highly discriminatory as well as against the norms set up

the CIC itself. The Petitioner also sought intervention of the Hon‟ble

Chief Information Commissioner giving necessary directions to all

concerned to list/decide cases according to their turn unless priority

is accorded to any case by written order of concerned Information

Commissioner. However, the Petitioner has not received any

response to aforesaid representation from the Respondents. Copy of

representation dated 28.10.2013 to Hon‟ble Chief Information

Commissioner in CIC by the Petitioner is enclosed herewith marked

as Annexure P-9.

11. That the Deputy Registrar of CIC, in respect of RTI Application of

the Petitioner, has submitted a report dated 22.11.2013, admitting

that number of Appeals/ Complaints pending for registration

(numbering) as on 22.11.2103 is 3019. In the CIC after filing of the

appeals/complained cases, it takes about 2 to 3 month for getting

such appeal or complaint registered and as per the normal

procedures, no case can be heard without it registration. Copy of

report dated 22.11.2013 submitted by the Deputy Registrar of CIC,

in respect of RTI Application of the Petitioner, has submitted is


12. The petitioner also obtained sample copy of data from the website of

the CIC and found that the Honourable Chief information

Commissioner has decided number of cases within 2 to 4 weeks of

their filing despite large number of cases (about 25,000 cases) are

pending for hearing for the last three years. Copy of sample copy of

data obtained from the website of the CIC showing Honourable

Chief Information Commissioner has decided number of cases

within 2 to 4 weeks of their filing despite is enclosed herewith

marked as Annexure P-11.

13. That the petitioner took the data from the CIC website showing that

number of appeals filed by the petitioner before the CIC which was

registered between March 2012 to September 2012 are pending for

hearing so as the appeals and complaints cases filed by the other

citizens. Though the CIC in large number of cases have disposed of

the matters, which were just filed. Thus on the one hand a person

have to wait for years together for their turn and there are some

persons are lucky to get the justice immediately after the date of

filing their appeals/complaints before CIC. The petitioner‟s

appeal/complaints are pending before CIC for nearly 2 years while

others appeals less complaints are being heard within a month or so.

Copy of sample copy of data obtained from the website of the CIC

showing cases of Petitioner is pending since year 2012 is enclosed

herewith marked as Annexure P-12.

14. That the Petitioner aggrieved by the above action/inaction of the

Respondents, is filing the present Writ Petition before this Hon‟ble

Court on the following, amongst other, grounds taken without

prejudice to each other:

GROUNDS

A. Because the Right to Information, 2005 is enacted with the

objective to bring transparency, accountability of state

instrumentality and to contain corruption. However, in the CIC, the

large numbers of cases are being listed and heard out of turn in

irregular manner and without any judicial orders and without

following the norms set-up by CIC under RTI Act and there is no

transparency and accountability within CIC in this account. The

Petitioner made the representation dated 28.10.2013 to Hon‟ble

Chief Information Commissioner, New Delhi in this matter, but the

Petitioner did not receive any response at all. The petitioner also

brought on records that the Honourable Chief Information

Commissioner has decided number of cases within 2 to 4 weeks of

their filing despite large number of cases (about 25,000 cases) are

pending for hearing for the last three years. Thus, on the one hand,

the Citizens like present petitioner are awaiting for their turn for

the last several years for the cases to be heard and disposed of by

CIC on the other hand there are instances when the cases are being

decided on the same day when these are being filed and even the

instances have come to the notice that when the cases were decided

even before these cases were registered by the registry of CIC. It is

a fundamental principle that listing and hearing of cases should be

according to seniority/age wise unless out of turn hearing ordered

by Bench by passing a reasoned order, however the same is not

being followed in CIC. Therefore, the number of petitioner‟s case

have also not been hard and decided, which are pending since year

2012 whereas the cases which have been filed subsequently are

being decided by CIC. Therefore the action of the respondent is

arbitrary and discriminatory, thus, it has violated the fundamental

right of the petitioner granted under Article 14 of the Constitution

of India and since the petitioner is not getting justice and the

information is being withheld unreasonably therefore it also violate

the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

B. Because out of turn hearing are being granted in CIC on whims

and fancies of the registry of CIC in violation of their own norms

set up under the RTI Act, 2005. Whereas under section 4(1)(b)(iv)

of the RTI Act, CIC set up norms hearing Appeals/Complaints on

first come first served basis. As per Notification dated 13.02.2008

issued by CIC, out of turn hearing shall be accorded only to

Appeals/Complaints filed by Senior Citizens and handicapped

persons. CIC in its full bench meeting held on 13.12.2011, under

section 12(4) of the RTI Act, priority hearing to be accorded to

Senior citizens, handicapped persons or involve larger public

interest. Yet, these principles and norms are being flouted as a

matter of routine. Granting of out of turn hearing in such manner,

even for the case which are not registered, certainly indicate

something fishy in the CIC and complete failure administrative

machinery within the CIC, therefore, it require indulgence of this

Hon‟ble Court, which have power of superintendence over CIC

being Tribunal, as held by this Hon‟ble Court in the case of

Mujibur Rehman Vs. CIC-2011(273) E.L.T. 216 (Del.).

C. Because the Petitioner has brought on records that CIC has heard

and decided unregistered case whereas the registered cases have

not been heard and decided for the last several years. In this

Petition, the Petitioner has brought on records that CIC has heard

and decided case on the same day, when it was filed before CIC,

whereas there are large number of cases (about 25,000) are

pending for disposal by CIC.

D. Because in the CIC, after filing of the appeals/complained cases, it

takes long time about 2 to 3 month for getting such appeal or

complaint registered/ numbered and as per the normal procedures,

no case can be heard without it registration. As on 22.11.2103, the

Appeals/ Complaints pending for registration (numbering) is 3019,

which is also causing delay, whereas RTI Acts aiming to provide

expeditious remedy. Such a long delay even for granting

registration number for the cases filed before the CIC can only be

attributed to the malfunctioning or non-monitoring by

administrative body within the CIC for which the citizens like

petitioner are suffering.

E. Because the RTI Act, 2005 provides different timelines for

processing of RTI application and providing of information,

disposal of appeals by the First Appellate Authority which varies

from 5 days to 30 days. However no time limit has been prescribed

for the disposal of cases by the Honorable CIC. Therefore, CIC

should also decide the cases filed before them under section 19

(second Appeal) and Complaint under section 18 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005, within the reasonable time. Whereas as of

now, there are large number of cases (about 25000) cases are

pending before the CIC. CIC should endeavour to dispose of the

cases within 3 months from the date of its filing to ensure that the

citizen get the information as expeditiously as intended by the

Parliament otherwise keeping with the present pendency in the

CIC it is defeating the very object of the RTI act which envisages

from making available the information to the citizens at the

earliest.

F. Because the non-disposal of the complaints filed under section 18

of the RTI act for years together is defeating the very objective of

the RTI act. The complaint under section 18 of the RTI act could

be filed for refusal to access to information, refusal to provide

information within the time-limit (30 days) prescribed in the act,

where the information provided is incomplete, misleading or false.

Therefore, if complained of such a nature is not being heard for

years together, on the one hand the citizen/petitioner is deprived of

information and the other hand it encourage the public information

officer to deny the information on whimsical grounds and the

citizens moved from one place to another place for seeking

information. Whereas under the RTI act stringent penalty

provisions have been made on the grounds of refusal of providing

false and misleading information, unless there is a reasonable

cause and the law has also empowered the CIC for recommending

disciplinary action against such officers. Therefore under the

circumstances, it is necessary that if such a nature of complaint is

filed before the CIC should be heard expeditiously as it has wider

ramifications and keeping such complaints pending for years only

adversely affect the objective of the RTI Act.

G. Because the Petitioner has brought on records that 6 Complaint

Petitions filed by the Petitioner on 11.04.2012 were lost by the

Registrar even after giving duly diary number of the same, CIC

registry was no able to trace. Surprisingly, there was no records

about missing of such lost files/ complaint cases, these thing only

came to notice, when the Petitioner through RTI Application dated

16.09.2013 sough the status of their such 6 Complaint cases.

15. That the Petitioner seeks to crave out the liberty before this Hon‟ble

Court to urge the additional grounds at the time of arguments.

16. That the Petitioner has no other equally efficacious alternate remedy

except by way of the present Writ Petition.

17. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar Writ Petition either

before Hon‟ble Supreme Court India or before any other Hon‟ble

High Court except the present one.

18. That the documents filed along with Writ Petition are true copies of

the respective originals.

Prayer

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon‟ble High Court may

be pleased to:

a. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/

order/ direction to the Respondents for setting up an appropriate

mechanism in place for ensuring registration of cases filed before

CIC immediately after its filing and not later than three days of its

filing or any other time frame as this Hon‟ble Court deem fit and

proper; and / or

b. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/


mechanism in place for ensuring listing and hearing of cases

strictly according to their seniority unless out of turn listing and

hearing granted by reason orders by appropriate Bench of CIC; and

/ or

c. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/

order/ direction to the Respondents for putting complete ban for

listing and hearing of unregistered cases; and / or

d. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/


mechanism in place for providing decision by the CIC in respect of

Appeals/ Complaint duly registered within reasonable time

preferably within 3 months from the date of its filing or any other

time frame as this Hon‟ble Court deem fit and proper; and / or

e. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/

order/ direction to the Respondent No. 2 to list and hearing all the

cases the Petitioner pending before the Respondent No. 2, which

are over 6 months old from the date of its filing; and

f. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/

order/ direction to the Respondents to produced authenticated

month wise details for the cases pending for registrations; and

g. issue a Writ of certiorari/ mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/

order/ direction to the Respondents to produced authenticated

details for the cases pending for hearing separately year wise in

respect of Appeal under Section 19 and Complaint under section

18 of the RTI Act; and

h. issue such other Writ/order/ direction and further orders as this

Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL

AS IN DUTY BOUND EVERY PRAY.

PETITIONER

J.K. Mittal





Date: 06.01.2014 Ph.22056635, 22461072

Email: [email protected]



WP(C) NO……………..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, R.K. Jain S/o. Late Shri P.D. Jain, aged about 63 years, resident of

1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, New Delh-110003, do hereby solemnly

affirms and declare as under: -

1. That I am the the Petitioner and fully conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have filed an accompanying Writ Petition Under Article 226 and

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the contents of the same are true

and correct and all these facts may be read, as part and parcel of this

affidavit and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on 6th day of January, 2014 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Date post:	31-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	live-law
View:	272 times
Download:	5 times

28. Writ Petition Against Out of Turn Hearing (1)

Documents