Petition seeking implementation of Citizens Charter and UN Convention; Court found substantive steps taken by Union of India and disposed without adjudication due to no appearance.
Petition dismissed as matter considered disposed with no substantive issue remaining for adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 19th July, 2017
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner Through : None.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Seerat Singh and Mr. Shivi Sanyam, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
W.P.(C)No.4782/2016 Page 1 of 5
counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows :
It is submitted that the Government is already trying to implement the Citizens Charter through executive instructions and the process is going on. It is contemplated that based on the experience of the Scheme, the Right to Services Bill could be formulated.”
2. That on 27.08.2011 the Parliament of India adopted the Sense of the House Resolution wherein the House inter-alia unanimously agreed in principle to the demand for the Citizens’ Charter. 3. That as per the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, D/o Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances is the nodal agency on all grievance related issues. This Department has since 1997 issued a number of circulars to the
W.P.(C)No.4782/2016 Page 2 of 5
Ministries/Departments of the Govt. of India as well as to the organisation under their administrative control for formulation of Citizens’ Charter containing information on the services being offered by them, designated authority and timelines for delivery of services.
4. That in view of demands of the Civil Society for bringing about improvements in the public service delivery through statutory measures and the already existing recommendations in the 12th Report of 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, the Right of Citizens’ for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 20.12.2011 after wide consultations with various stakeholders.
5. That the Bill was referred to the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on 12.01.2012, the Committee submitted its recommendations in its 53rd Report on 28.08.2012.
6. That the Government accepted 24 out of 39 recommendations. Based on these recommendations the official amendments to the Bill were listed for consideration and passing by the Lok Sabha on several occasions in the Winter and extended Winter Session of Parliament in the year 2013 and 2014. However, the Bill could not be passed due to frequent adjournments of the Lok Sabha and it lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.
7. That a proposal for re-introduction of the said Bill renamed as Right to Services and Grievance Redress Bill, 2014 was prepared and circulated to all the Central Ministries/Departments on 16.07.2014 for their comments in reply to which comments were received from most of the Departments. However, it was felt that since 19 States have already implemented such an Act, it may be more appropriate if initially instead of a Bill, a Scheme is implemented as being a pan-India Bill its implementation could be difficult due to already existing legislations in States which could raise several issues including the need for frequent amendments for
W.P.(C)No.4782/2016 Page 3 of 5
smooth execution. Thus, the Right to Services could be implemented through a Scheme and once the loose ends gets tightened a Bill could be considered thereafter.
8. Therefore, a draft Delivery of Services and Grievance Redress Scheme has been prepared and circulated to all the Ministries/Departments. The Scheme has been improved and modified based on the comments and submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat for obtaining views of the Committee of Secretaries before it is re-submitted to the competent authority.”
i. A grievance may be redressed within a period of 60 days. In case not possible, an interim reply with reasons for delay to be provided. Copy(s) of the reply may also be uploaded on the system.
ii. Grievances should not be closed abruptly. Well reasoned orders may be given while closing a grievance.
iii. A grievance may be closed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary/Director.
iv. Action on grievance may be reviewed on sample basis by the officers of the rank of Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in every Ministry/Department.
v. Each Ministry/Department/Organisation to nominate a Director of Public Grievances preferably not below the rank of Joint Secretary.
vi. Director of Public Grievance to remain available to the
W.P.(C)No.4782/2016 Page 4 of 5
public on each Wednesday for receiving their grievances. ”
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 19, 2017 aj
W.P.(C)No.4782/2016 Page 5 of 5
Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay
Union of India
C. Hari Shankar
Gita Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
