29/07/2012

Gmail - For the Kind attention of the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat - Submission of a grievance

Dr.V.S.Prasanna Rajan <vsp.rajan@gmail.com>

For the Kind attention of the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat - Submission of a
grievance petition Dated.29-07-2012, from Dr.V.S.Prasanna Rajan, Hyderabad for
appropriate action or response.
1 message
Dr.V.S.Prasanna Rajan <vsp.rajan@gmail.com>
To: cabinetsy@nic.in

Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Sir,
With reference to the subject mentioned above, enclosed please find herewith this mail, a grievance petition
Dated.29-07-2012, regarding the same. I hereby mention that the legal validity of the same is ensured by Section
4 of The Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the relevant sections of the Information Technology
Amendment act, 2008. I further mention that an RTI application is also filed by the undersigned to The Cabinet
Secretariat, to monitor the progress made on the said grievance petition, sent as an attached file in this mail.
Taking cognizance of the facts presented in this email as well as in the attached file, I hereby request you to do
the needful.
Thanking You,
Sincerely Yours,
V.S.Prasanna Rajan.

Grievance petition Dated 29-07-2012.pdf

69K

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=b844d33854&view=pt&search=sent&th=138d2b7da5c46d06

1/1

From

29.07.2012
Dr. V.S. Prasanna Rajan,
12-13-691-A, G-1, Madhuban, Street 13,
Lane 3, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500017.

To
The Cabinet Secretary,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi - 110004.
Sir / Madam,
Sub: Submission of Grievance Petition for the initiation of appropriate administrative / departmental proceedings on the
officials of Cabinet Secretariat, for their official inaction punishable under Section 166 the Indian Penal Code, 1860. - Reg.
Refs:[1]. RTI applications Dated. 09.09.2011, 03.10.2011, 18.10.2011, 27.10.2011, 09.11.2011, 15.11.2011, 12.12.2011, 04.01.2012
filed by the undersigned to the Cabinet Secretariat.
[2]. First appeals Dated.18.10.2011, 11.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 02.12.2011, 15.12.2011, 20.12.2011, 07.01.2012, 16.02.2012 filed by
the undersigned to the Cabinet Secretariat.
[3]. Letter Dated. 07.01.2012 to The Secretary ( Coordination ) , Cabinet Secretariat, and received by the said secretariat on
09.01.2012 vide Speed Post number EN044403269IN.

[4]. Para. 42 in the decision of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 , Chief Information Commr. and
Another - Versus -State of Manipur and Another - Date of judgment: 12.12.2011.
With reference to the subject mentioned above and vide Refs.[1-4], I hereby mention that I am aggrieved by the fact that I
have not yet been provided any information for the RTI applications vide Ref.[1] nor any reply from the Appellate authority, for
the first appeals vide Ref.[2], till date. Moreover, the undersigned did not get any reply for the letter vide Ref.[3] addressed to The
Secretary ( Coordination ) .
In this connection, I hereby place on record, the Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 -

Section 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person - Whoever, being a public servant,
knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Classification of the offence under Section 166 - PunishmentSimple imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or bothNoncognizableBailableTriable by Magistrate of the first classNon-compoundable.
I hereby bring to your attention that as per Section 7(1) of the RTI act, 2005, the RTI application should be disposed of within
a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the same, by the concerned public information officer. Moreover, as per Section
19(6) of the RTI act, 2005, the first appeal should be disposed of within a maximum period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
the same by the concerned official.

I hereby bring to your attention that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court vide Ref.[4], the procedure under Section (19)
of the RTI Act, 2005, dealing with appeals is a TIME BOUND PROCEDURE, which mandates the Appellate authority to decide
the first appeal within the maximum time period as stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005.
1

With regard to the time bound disposal of applications / representation by public functionaries, it is held by the judiciary that
expeditious disposal of applications / letters / representations by the public officials is a right ingrained in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 8348 of 2009 by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad is placed here on record Indubitably, expeditious decision on the representation or application is a right ingrained in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. 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.
The said court further mandated the Chief Secretary to issue appropriate instructions or circular for expeditious disposal of
any application / representation from the public, including appropriate Departmental action for dereliction of duty. The relevant
portion of the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition, is placed here in on record 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.
With regard to the disposal of the just claims from the public by the public authorities, the Honorable apex court in Madras
Port Trust vs Hymanshu International AIR 1979 SC 1144, 1985 (5) ECR 2310 SC said It is high time that governments and
public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens
and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court
has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not
ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of
delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.
Also, a catena of decisions by the Indian Judiciary cited in the following paragraphs, decided in favor of disposal of just claims
from the public by the public authority without rejecting the said claim by technical and /or frivolous reasons.
a) A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved.
[Saiyad Mohd. V Abdulhabib, (1988) 4 SCC 343]
b) A Party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules
of procedure. The Rules of Procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the Administration of Justice and they must therefore
be construed liberally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. [Ram Manohar Lal
Vs NBM Supply, AIR 1969 [17-03-1969 SC]
c) Common sense should not be kept in the cold storage when pleadings are construed. Parties win or lose on substantial
questions, not on technical tortures and Courts cannot be "abettors". [Noronha V Prem Kumari, AIR 1980.]
2

d) Every venial defect or error not going to the root of the matter cannot be allowed to defeat justice or afford an excuse to the
Government or a Public Officer to deny just claim. [Jones V Nicholls, (1844) 13 M & W 361.]
The apex court in Review Petition (C) NO.1378 OF 2009 in Writ Petition (C) NO.457 OF 2005 Remdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath
Chauhan Versus Bani Kant Das & Others Date of Judgment: November 19, 2010 in para.52, held that denial of due benefit by the
public officials to the public / citizens under any law, amounts to human rights violation, and by wider interpretation of Section
12(j) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, held that the Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of denial of benefit to the public under any law, under the said section, and due redressal could be provided for the same, by the
commission. The relevant portion of the judgment is placed here on record If we look at Section 12(j) of the 1993 Act, we find that it confers on NHRC such other functions as it may consider necessary
for the promotion of human rights. It is not necessary that each and every case relating to the violation of human rights will fit
squarely within the four corners of section 12 of the 1993 Act, for invoking the jurisdiction of the NHRC. One must accept that
human rights are not like edicts inscribed on a rock. They are made and unmade on the crucible of experience and through
irreversible process of human struggle for freedom. They admit of a certain degree of fluidity. Categories of human rights, being
of infinite variety, are never really closed. That is why the residuary clause in sub-section (j) has been so widely worded to take
care of situations not covered by subsections (a) to (i) of Section 12 of the 1993 Act. The jurisdiction of NHRC thus stands
enlarged by section 12(j) of the 1993 Act, to take necessary action for the protection of human rights. Such action would include
inquiring into cases where a party has been denied the protection of any law to which he is entitled, whether by a private party, a
public institution, the government or even the Courts of law. We are of the opinion that if a person is entitled to benefit under a
particular law, and benefits under that law have been denied to him, it will amount to a violation of his human rights.

The Honorable Supreme Court of India, in Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta [CITATION: 1994 AIR 787
1994 SCC (1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307 1993 SCALE (4)370] has emphasized the sovereignty of the citizens and the accountability of
the public authorities to the statutory authorities or the courts in the following words - Under our Constitution sovereignty
vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of
statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the
statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.
Also, as per Section 14 of General Clauses Act 1897- Powers conferred to be exercisable from time to time.- (1) Where, By
any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred then (unless a different
intention appears) that power may be exercised from time to time as occasions requires. This section applies also to all (Central
Acts) and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887.
The above mentioned Clause clearly highlights the relevant provisions of law under which the recipient Public Authority is
obliged under the law to attend the nature of the queries/grievances received and to take needed action in this regard.

Moreover, with regard to the initiation of appropriate administrative / departmental proceedings on the concerned officials for
their official inaction on the RTI applications vide Ref.[1] and the first appeals vide Ref.[2], I hereby place on record, the relevant
legal provisions permitting the same 3

I hereby place on record the Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 21 of the RTI act, 2005 and explain how the
protection guaranteed by Section 21 of the RTI Act, is not a bar for the initiation of administrative / departmental proceedings on
the delinquent officials for their failure to discharge their duties under the RTI act, 2005.

Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Good faith - Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done
or believed without due care and attention.
Section 21 of the RTI act, 2005 - Protection of action taken in good faith -21.No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding
shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made
thereunder.
From a plain reading of Section 21 of the RTI Act, 2005 along with Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 it is clearly
conveyed that THE STATUTORY PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE RTI ACT, IS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR
THOSE OFFICIAL ACTIONS WHICH ARE DONE OR INTENDED TO BE DONE UNDER GOOD FAITH ( WITH DUE
CARE AND ATTENTION) .
WITH REGARD TO THE TERM LEGAL PROCEEDINGS USED IN SECTION 21 OF THE RTI ACT, 2005, THE SAID
TERM WAS CLARIFIED BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 of 2011 GENERAL
OFFICER COMMANDING VERSUS CBI & ANR- PARA.12 Legal proceedings do not include the administrative proceedings. In Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Anr., (1993) 2 SCC 144, this Court dealt with the expressions proceedings and legal
proceedings and placed reliance upon the dictionary meaning of expression legal proceedings as found in Black Law Dictionary
(Fourth Edition) which read as under:
Any proceedings in court of justice ... by which property of debtor is seized and diverted from his general creditors .... This term
includes all proceedings authorised or sanctioned by law, and brought or instituted in a court of justice or legal tribunal, for the
acquiring of a right or the enforcement of a remedy.
The Court came to the conclusion that proceedings before statutory authorities under the provisions of the Act do not amount
to legal proceedings.
Legal proceedings means proceedings regulated or prescribed by law in which a judicial decision may be given; it means
proceedings in a court of justice by which a party pursues a remedy which a law provides, but does not include administrative
and departmental proceedings.
HENCE, BASED ON THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE
PROTECTION GIVEN UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE RTI ACT, 2005 IS NOT A BAR FOR THE INSTITUTION OF
DEPARTMENTAL / ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS, FOR THEIR
OFFICIAL INACTIONS NOT AMOUNTING TO GOOD FAITH, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 52 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

BASED ON THE AFORESAID LEGAL PROVISIONS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE OFFICIAL
INACTION OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY NOT DISPOSING THE
RTI APPLICATION VIDE REF.[1] AND THE FIRST APPEAL VIDE REF.[2], WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AS
MENTIONED IN THE RTI ACT, 2005, THEREBY ACTING CONTRARY TO LAW , CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN GOOD
FAITH, AND IS SQUARELY COVERED UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 166 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.

MOREOVER, SUCH INDIFFERENCE TO LAW, SO EXHIBITED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO GOOD FAITH, AND HENCE, THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY
SECTION 21 OF THE RTI ACT, 2005 IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR SUCH OFFICERS, IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF MY CASE.

I further place on record that as per the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala Vs
S.K.Sharma - Citation - 1996 AIR 1669 Date of Judgement 27/03/1996, the principles of natural justice must be necessarily
followed in the administrative / departmental proceedings, before any final decision is taken by the competent authority.
Taking cognizance of the facts and legal provisions so presented in this grievance petition, I hereby request you to (a) Initiate commensurate official procedures so as to enable the concerned official to dispose the RTI applications vide Ref.[1],
without any further delay.
(b) Initiate commensurate official procedures so as to enable the concerned official to dispose the first appeals vide Ref.[2],
without any further delay.
(c) Initiate commensurate official procedures for the administrative / departmental proceedings on the delinquent officials for
their official inaction with respect to the time bound disposal of RTI applications vide Ref.[1] and the First appeals vide Ref.
[2], which is punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Thanking You,
Sincerely Yours,

V.S. Prasanna Rajan.