An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
Shri M.V. Ramesh
Registrar /First Appellate Authority
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Tel. No.23385265/ Fax No.23384533
Subject-Since the matter is concerned with wide realm of corruption in the system so Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to direct CPIO to made available the information as sought.
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought the following point-wise information from central public information officer of Apex court of India.
1-Copy of report made available by the staffs of Registrar judicial to him in regard to Submitted grievance of your applicant through registered post dated 20/10/2015 .
2-Copy of the noting in regard to Submitted grievance of your applicant through registered post dated 20/10/2015 .
3-Action taken by the Hon’ble Apex court of India in respect of aforesaid submitted petition dated 20/10/2015 under articles 32 of constitution of India as matter is concerned with grass violation of fundamental rights and wide public interest.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of section 4 (1) [d] of Right to Information Act 2005 as – Obligations of public authorities. —(/) Every public authority shall—d- provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
[No. 22 OF 2005 [15th June, 2005]
An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
Hon’ble Sir whether cryptic reply will promote the transparency and accountability in the working of public authority.Whether such act will not lower the dignity of court in the mind common citizenry.Whether this is justified response of CPIO ,Apex court of India.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. Aforesaid comment was made by division bench of Apex court of India in the following case.
Appeal (crl.) 778 of 1997
State of Punjab
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2003
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT
J U D G M E N T-ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that undoubtedly matter is concerned with large scale misappropriation of public fund in which huge amount of public fund spent on papers instead of making Indira awases at the ground consequently Government of Uttar Pradesh had to take action against wrongdoers but all concerned staffs of government of Uttar Pradesh only procrastinated on the matter concerned and when public spirited people made contact to concerned staffs of central government including PMO ,then parrot reply was made that matter is concerned with the Government of Uttar Pradesh so grievance has been forwarded to the state government concerned.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when your appellant frustrated from all quarters of government of India ,took shelter in the apex court of India in order to protect the grass violations of fundamental rights of citizenry of state so that wide extensive prevailed anarchy in the government machinery could be curbed partially and flow of taxed money could be avoided to flow into the pockets of corrupt public functionaries in the interest of justice but cryptic reply of central public information officer of Supreme court of India is proving to be stumbling block in seeking justice for poor and downtrodden section and protecting fundamental rights of weaker section.
6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether such cryptic style of functioning reflecting no transparency and accountability in the working of public authority is not the reflection of failure of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005. Where are copies of orders passed by the concerned in regard to petition dated 20/10/2015? Only to say that submitted petition is not covered under the guidelines of public interest litigation prescribed by Apex court of India is not tantamount to keep the petitioner under sheer dark instead of pointing out reason so that lacunae could be removed.
7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that undoubtedly apex court of India decided the fate of my petition on flimsy ground through its registry best known to its staff not known to petitioner which is violation of constitutional right prescribed under article 51 A of constitution of India. Whether it is justified . Whether in the name of procedural lacunae ,citizens can be deprived from right to justice which is fundamental right under article 32 of the constitution of India. Therefore in the in the interest of justice , CPIO may provide detail information as sought.
8-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that on one side of screen ,apex court claim to provide justice to weaker and downtrodden section as judicial activism if informed on only writing on a simple post card but other side of screen even those petitions duly paid court fee are not reaching to benches because their fates are decided by the registry of the apex court.
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yogi M. P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India