Application for First appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005From 24.04.2015 Shri. T. Sampath, Managing Partner, M/s Sree Kumaresa Enterprises, Door No. 7/4, C-33, Thiaga Brammam Street, Subramania Nagar, Salem – 636005.To The First Appellate Authority ( RTI ) , Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ( Salem ), Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road,Hastampatty, Salem – 636007

Sir / Madam,

Sub: No response / information provided by the Public Information officer for the RTI application filed by the undersigned.

Refs [1]: RTI application Dated. 09-03-2015 filed by the undersigned .

[2]: RTI application mentioned above forwarded u/s 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005 vide Proc. No. Act Cell – I / 8654 / 2015 Dated.23-03-2015, Letter No. Acts Cell – I / 8654 / 2015 Dated. 23-03-2015, and addressed to the Public Information officer, Commercial Tax officer – Suramangalam Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Pitchards Road,Hastampatty, Salem – 636007 from the Public Information Officer, Joint Commissioner ( Special Cell ), 4th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005 . [3]: Decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 8348 of 2009.

[4]: Decision of the Honorable Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 OF 2012 – Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors Versus Living Media India Ltd. & Anr - Date of judgment – 24-02-2014.

[5]: Decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.117 of 1986 – Miss. Radha Bai Vs The Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its Chief Secretary and others.

[6]: 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.[1,2] I hereby bring to your attention that the undersigned is

aggrieved by the fact that the public information officer did not provide any information / response till date, for paras.8,9,10,11,12

listed in the said RTI application mentioned in the reference.

Aggrieved by the same, this first appeal is filed by the undersigned for appropriate action by the first appellate authority,

within the time limit mandated by the aforementioned act.

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 vide Ref.[3] , 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.”

1

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 aforementioned 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. ”

The Honorable Supreme court in para.13 of the judgment vide Ref.[4], held - In our view, it is the right time to inform all the

government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay

and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several

months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The law shelters everyone under the same light

and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

It is further mentioned that the practice of forcing the public to run from pillar to post,

resulting in unwarranted and avoidable appeals / litigation, was clearly decried by the Supreme

Court of India.

The relevant portion of the judgment vide Ref.[5] is placed here on record - “ A responsible

statutory authority or administration, owes a duty to the public, to discharge its functions

reasonably, honestly and bonafide, without driving the aggrieved persons from pillar to post, and

should there be any non-excusable lapse on this score, the concerned authority or administration,

should be held responsible for the loss or damage accruing thereby to the aggrieved persons.”

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.”

As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, the First appeal should be disposed within a maximum time limit of 45 days

from the date of filing the same. Moreover, as per the decision of the Supreme Court vide Ref.[6], the procedure under Section

(19) of the RTI Act, 2005, dealing with appeals is a TIME BOUND PROCEDURE. Hence it is mandatory on the Appellate

authority to decide the First appeal with a maximum time limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of the same, as specified u/s

19(6) of the RTI act, 2005.

2

The appellate authority is to note that since the date by which the information to be provided

has already lapsed, the copies of the documents so requested vide Ref.[1] should be provided free

of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005.

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 mentioned Clause of The General Clauses Act, 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.

Taking cognizance of the facts presented in this appeal, and as per the provisions of the RTI

Act, 2005, I hereby request the First appellate authority, to -

(a) Direct the Public Information officer, in your official capacity as appellate authority under

the said act, to provide the information requested in paras.8,9,10,11,12 listed in the RTI

application vide Ref.[1], free of cost without any further delay, either by speed / registered

post, at the earliest .

(b) Provide the copy of the order of the First appellate authority so issued pursuant to this

appeal, to the undersigned by speed / registered post within the time frame stipulated under

the RTI act, 2005.

Thanking you,Sincerely,

T. Sampath / Managing Partner.

3

Application for Information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005From 09-03-2015 Shri. T. Sampath,Managing Partner, M/s Sree Kumaresa Enterprises, Door No. 7/4, C-33, Thiaga Brammam Street, Subramania Nagar, Salem – 636005.To The Central Public Information officer, Sc -D, National Informatics Centre, Head Quarters, A- Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003.

Kindly provide PARAWISE REPLIES as well as the CERTIFIED COPIES of the records so requested herein only by speed / registered post

Note to the Central Public Information Officer : The Central Information Commission in its decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906 Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG Dated.16-06-2011, has held that RTI application can be

transferred to multiple public authorities.

1. Certified copy of the records containing the information on the status / proof of delivery of the email Dated.09-03-2015 sent from ........................ to cct.tn@nic.in along with a single attached file whose details are provided in the single page enclosure attached with this application.

2. Consequent to the non-delivery of the emails along with the single attached file whose details are mentioned in para.1 then provide the certified copies of the error logs generated by the server regarding the same.

3. Consequent to the availability of the information for para.1, then provide the certified copy of the record containing the information on the official action taken u/s 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005, by the CPIO, to forward this application along with the the single page enclosure within 5 days of its receipt to the Public Information officer, Joint Commissioner ( Special Cell ), 4th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005, for providing information on paras.5, 6, 7, 8,9,10,11,12 listed in this application.

4. Consequent to the availability of the information for para.1, then provide the information on the speed post / registered post receipt number of the postal article through which this application along with the single page enclosure was forwarded u/s 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005, within 5 days of the receipt of this application to the Public Information officer, Joint Commissioner ( Special Cell ), 4th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005, for providing information on paras.5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 listed in this application.

5. Information on the official action taken by the competent official / authority, on the letter Dated.09-03-2015 sent as a single attached file via email to cct.tn@nic.in from sreekumaresaenterprises@gmail.com on 09-03-2015.

6. Information on the official action taken to forward the letter Dated.09-03-2015 referred to in para.5, to the competent authority for further commensurate action.

7. Information on the official action taken u/s 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005, by the Public Information officer, to forward this application to the concerned public authority to whom the letter Dated.09-03-2015 mentioned in para.5 was forwarded, in order to provide information for paras.8,9,10,11,12 listed in this application.

8. Registered / speed post receipt number of the postal article through which the notice for hearing was sent by the competent authority to the undersigned as well as to the delinquent officials of the Department of Commercial Taxes, pursuant to the official action taken on the letter Dated.09-03-2015, thereby acting as per the law laid down by the Supreme court in A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors - Judgment Dated- 29th April, 1969 and Madras Port Trust vs Hymanshu International AIR 1979 SC 1144, 1985 (5) ECR 2310 SC, specifically mentioned in the said letter.

9. Certified copy of the records containing the records, notings, assessments made by the competent authority on the submissions made by the undersigned as well as the departmental officials, in the inquiry conducted on the letter mentioned in para.5, based on which final decision was taken by the said authority on the letter so referred to herein.

10. Certified copy of the final decision taken by the competent authority on the letter mentioned in para.5, after taking into consideration the submissions of the undersigned and the departmental officials, on the inquiry conducted based on the said letter.

1

11. Information on the enforcement of the departmental mechanism to monetarily compensate those assessees who are harassed / made to suffer mental agony and other unwarranted and avoidable monetary expenses, due to the tortious actions of the departmental officials, clearly established on records pursuant to the inquiry conducted by the competent authority and which is in consonant with the need for due compensation of the harassed public emphasized by the Supreme court of India in, Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta - Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 1990 – Date of judgment: 05-11-1993 and in N. Nagengra Rao & Co. Vs. State Of A.P.- Citation - 1994 SCC (6) 205 – Date of judgment – 6-09-1994 and followed by the Allahabad High court in Writ Tax No. 478 of 2014 - M/s Sandeep Bulk Carriers Vs State Of U.P. and 3 Ors.

12. Consequent to the non-availability of information for paras.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 then provide the certified copy of the record containing the information / administrative reasons recorded under Section 4(1)d of the RTI act, 2005, regarding the same.

Enclosure: Single Page copy of the Email sent on 09-03-2015.

Application fee paid: Rs.10/-

2