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 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

INDEX S .No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Particulars 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. 7 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. 8 Annexure P-2 - Copy of the Notification dated 13.02.2008 issued by CIC. 9 Annexure P-3 - Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.12.2012 held by full bench of CIC. 10 Annexure P-4 Copy of order dated 13.05.2013 in case No. Page No

CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 passed by CIC along with its status report for CIC website. 11 Annexure P-5 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. 12 Annexure P-6 Copy of RTI reply dated 15.10.2013 by CIC 13 Annexure P-7 Copy of RTI reply dated 31.10.2013 by CIC 14 Annexure P-8 Copy of RTI reply dated 07.10.2013 by CIC 15 Annexure P-9 Copy of representation dated 28.10.2013 to Honble Chief Information Commissioner in CIC by the Petitioner. 16 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. 17 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. 18 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. 19 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER Through J.K. Mittal/Varun Gaba (J.K. Mittal and Company) Advocates and Legal Consultants 57, East End Enclave, Delhi-110092 Ph.22056635,22460171,72 Email:jkmittalservicetax@gmail.com

Place: New Delhi Date: 06.01.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) NO..OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: R.K. JAIN UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

NOTICE OF MOTION To, The D.L.A. LIT. SEC., Union of India High Court of Delhi. 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 (J.K. Mittal and Company) Advocates and Legal Consultants Counsels for the Petitioner 57, East End Enclave Delhi-110092 Ph.22056635,22460171,72 Email:jkmittalservicetax@gmail.com

RESPONDENT No. 1

Place: New Delhi Date: 06.01.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WP(C) NO..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: R.K. JAIN UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

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 J.K.Mittal/Varun Gaba (J.K. Mittal and Company) Advocates and Legal Consultants Counsels for the Petitioner 57, East End Enclave Delhi-110092 Ph.22056635,22460171,72 Email:jkmittalservicetax@gmail.com

Place: New Delhi Date: 06.01.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) NO..OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: R.K. JAIN UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES R.K. Jain Editor, Excise Law Times 1512 B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg New Delhi-110003 Versus Union of India The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi 110001 ... RESPONDENT NO. 1 .. PETITIONER

Central Information Commission Through its Secretary, 2nd Floor B-wing, August Kranti Bhavan Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-11006 ... RESPONDENT NO. 2

Place: New Delhi Date: 06.01.2014

J.K.Mittal/Varun Gaba (J.K. Mittal and Company) Advocates and Legal Consultants Counsels for the Petitioner 57, East End Enclave Delhi-110092 Ph.22056635,22460171,72 Email:jkmittalservicetax@gmail.com

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 petitioners 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 Honble Court.

DATE 2006

PARTICULARS 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble Court by way of present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WP(C) NO..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: R.K. JAIN UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

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 HONBLE 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 whistleblower by the Honble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 13.08.2010. In the PIL (W.P.No. 8688/2011) filed by the Petitioner, this Honble 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 Transfer of application when information is held by other public authorities Notice when information relates to third party Response of the Third Party Providing of information under RTI

Time limit 5 days.

Section of the RTI Act, 2005 Proviso to Section 6(3)

5 days

Section 11 (1)

10 days. i) 30 days ii) 40 days when Third Party Notice issued.

Section 11(2) Section 7(1) read with section 7(3)

Appeal against refusal to provide information or failure to respond to RTI application (Deemed refusal) Disposal of appeal by First Appellate Authority

iii) 48 hours when Life and Liberty of citizen involved. 30 days from Section 19(1) the date of receipt of the order/ filing of application. 30 days + 15 Section 19(1) & (6) days extension (total period 45 days)

Appeal To CIC By RTI 90 days Applicant Disposal of No time limit appeal/complaint by CIC

Section 19(3) 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 1 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 enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-8.

10. That the Petitioner moved a representation dated 28.10.2013 to Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 enclosed herewith marked as Annexure P-10.

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 petitioners 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 petitioners 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 Honble Court, which have power of superintendence over CIC

being Tribunal, as held by this Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble Supreme Court India or before any other Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble Court deem fit and proper; and / or

b. 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 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/ order/ direction to the Respondents for setting up an appropriate 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 (J.K. Mittal and Company) Advocates and Legal Consultants 57, East End Enclave Place: New Delhi Date: 06.01.2014 Delhi-110092 Ph.22056635, 22461072 Email: jkmittalservicetax@gmail.com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WP(C) NO..OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: R.K. JAIN UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. . VERSUS .. RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

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