Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

Observations in WP (C) No. 8348 / 2009 – date of judgment – 25.01.2010 We have come across several writ petitions in which similar relief is claimed not only in respect of inaction of the authority dealing with land acquisition proceedings, but even other departments, such as Cooperative Department, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishads and the like. We find that substantial number of writ petitions, such as the present petition, which are filed in this Court, are avoidable, if the officials of the State were to discharge their statutory obligation of deciding the representation within a reasonable time. In the present case, petitioner has submitted her application almost one year back i.e. 5 th January, 2009. It is unnecessary to underscore that the applicant would have legitimate expectation of early redressal of her grievance. Indubitably, expeditious decision on the representation or application is a right ingrained in

Para 7: It is important to note that provisions of Citizens Charter by the Administrative Departments of the Government must be made known to the common man for whom it is meant. It is no doubt true that Citizens Charter which was published, though put on the website, however, in order to apprise the common man about the Citizens Charter, we direct each Administrative Department of the State Government to affix copy of Citizens Charter prepared by that Department on the notice board to be placed on the front lobby of the Department or at such a place which is easily visible to members of public who visit the Department. The entire exercise must be completed by each Department within a period of two months from today. We also expect the State Government to finalize the Rules to carry out purpose of the Act without further delay and notify the same in the official gazette. PIL No.50 / 2011 – date of judgment – 21.12.2011 Sandeep Jalan Advocate Law Referencer: https://www.vakee

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among other things, has observed and directed – “…The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in a large number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well. A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the citizens. In case a proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State. Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or St