UAE Case Diary                                                                          

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY - FIRST APPEAL
[The Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur Police Station]
First Appeal Dated: 14th day of May, 20145

"Departmental action against the respondents has been recommended by Shri.Vinson M Paul,
the State Chief Information Commissioner (SIC), Kerala, under RTI Act" 
Departmental Action Against the Respondents by the SIC, Kerala, Under RTI Act

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(The Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur Police Station)

 

First Appeal No.                         of 2014 

Panikkaveettil K. Jabir
Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell, 5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building,                   Appellant
Market Road, Near High Court, Kochi, Kerala - Pin.682 018.
                                                                               v.
The State Public Information Officer,                                       
(O/o The Sub Inspector of Police,)                                                         Respondent
Guruvayoor Police Station, Guruvayur,
Thrissur District, Kerala State - Pin: 680 101. 

Appeal Filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act

1. The appellant is a citizen of India.  He belongs to Chavakkad, in the Trichur District.  He was born and brought up within the jurisdiction of Guruvayur Police Station in Trichur District.
2. The appellant submitted an application U/s 6 (1), 6(3) of The Right to Information Act 2005 before the respondent 2-3-2014,in public interest seeking certain information and documents regarding to an investigation report, that has been forwarded before the High Court of Kerala, by the Sub Inspector of Guruvayur Police Station. (A true copy of application is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1).
3. The appellant is aggrieved by a reply from the Central Public Information, in the office of the Sub Inspector of Police, passed on 01-04-2014. (A true copy of the reply sent by the respondent is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-2).
4. It is submitted that the reply, is in fact the outcome of a conspiracy and is fraudulent and corrupt and has been deliberately fabricated to conceal the real facts and to protect a culprit who is dealing with assets worth more than Rs.30 crores of the appellant, in a totally illegitimate manner.
5. The background of the case is briefly indicated for facilitating an effective disposal of the appeal and for initiating appropriate and stringent action against a member of the disciplined force in the State of Kerala.
6. The appellant had been working in the UAE since 1979, and by his strenuous efforts, he had developed some of the very lucrative Electro-Mechanical, Contracting and Trading Establishments.
7. The accused, Mr. Abdul Jaleel, is the appellant’s younger brother, who was helped by the appellant, by taking him to Abu Dhabi and a job was given under his establishment. The accused is merely a ‘Contract Worker’ according to the UAE Law.
8. In 1996, a Power of Attorney was given to the accused to manage the appellant’s   two of the establishments in Abu Dhabi, in an exigency, by proceedings number 646/1996 of the Judicial Court of Abu Dhabi, in all good faith. Apart from the material assets of the establishments, the entire facilities, job contracts, human resources, client/business contacts, reputation etc., of the appellant have been brought to the personal possession and enjoyment of the accused, despite an obligation to render accounts to the appellant.  A copy of Power of Attorney, both Arabic and English (translation), is attached as Annexure-3 to this appeal.
9. The accused was bound under law to protect the interests of the appellant who was the Principal. The accused doesn’t have any Rights to sell or alter the establishments and or enter into any fictitious transactions.  Instead, the accused has mismanaged and sold all properties of the establishments. He has generated several business ventures in Abu Dhabi, under benami, for his own selfish motives; and land properties in India held under his name as well as benami for matters.
10. The Sub Inspector of police, after a period of one year, has submitted his investigation report of the case as ‘Mistake of Fact’. The report was sent by Mr. M.Surendren, S.I. of Guruvayur Police, to the Advocate General on 12.06.2009, according to the instruction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
11. The action on the part of Sub Inspector of Guruvayur Police Station further defamed the appellant. Had the Sub Inspector relied up on facts before him and reported the truth to the judiciary, the appellant could have received appropriate legal remedies and the accused found his place behind the bars. Resultantly, the investigators were put to heavy loss of appellant’s assets, mental torture as well as his dignity.
12. The investigation report of the Sub Inspector of Police contains patent and palpable errors.  It was stated that, the applicant was punished for a term of one year in Abu Dhabi and after the term of punishment, he was deported to India in 1997.  The investigation report concludes that the appellant concern’s, the Ramla Electro-Mechanical Est., does not belong to the appellant and the license holder is Mr. Isa Ahmed Jafar of Abu Dhabi.  With that observation, the police official closed the investigation as Mistake of Fact.
13. The report is vitiated by the corruption on the part of the police official who had investigated the matter, Sub Inspectors M. Surendran and Mr. Premjith. Further proceedings are contemplated against these officials, who took a false stand camouflaged by the influence of the accused and his allies. It is submitted that the police officials who handled the appellant’s case are guilty of grave corruption and deliberate abuse of the official position.
14. The appellant wishes to submit before the Hon’ble Appellate Authority the special and specific reason for his submitting the appeal viz., the fact that, the appellant was not punished in any court in the UAE. Instead, the highest court of that land, the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi, illustrated the appellant as a ‘martyr’ in its Judgment and highlighted the intense miseries he went through.  It was in furtherance of the object of obtaining justice that the application under the R.T.I Act was filed before the Information Officer.
15. The most salient facts of the appellant's case in the UAE is summarized below:
    

(i)    The Courts pronounced orders pointing out to the culpability of the officials and their collaborators. The ‘Landmark Judgment’ of the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi was worth hundreds of millions as compensation to restore his life, his dignity and his business establishments.

(ii)   Despite all these judicial pronouncements, the appellant was fraudulently and deceitfully deported from Abu Dhabi, in order to bypass honouring the concurring Judicial Orders, by its conspirators working under the Ministry of Interior, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

(iii)    The story has been featured in the web as “Real-life Judgment Fraud by the UAE Administration Uncovered”. (Website-URL: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1116765

(iv)   The legal fight for justice took in very many proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi.  Despite the directive of the Delhi High Court, the External Affairs Ministry has not discharged its duties as indicated in the judicial order.  Further proceedings are being pursued separately by the appellant.
           

16. The reply is opposed to the basic principles of the Right to Information Act, and the requirements of general law.  It is therefore liable to be set aside in the appeal before this Hon’ble Appellate Authority.

                                                 
                                                         GROUNDS

1. The records in a police station constitute basic and vital information, for a citizen.  That valuable right cannot be defeated by the officials by putting forward false pleas like ‘damage by termites or ants’.
2. The Police Station and the Record Room, is subjected to the handling of officials every day, and in an official way.  Consequently, a plea as put forward in the order cannot be sustained at all.
3. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Appellate Authority may be pleased to visit the Police Station concerned and verify the records kept therein, and take such action as is necessary to verify the correctness of the artificial and extra-ordinary plea of damage of records by ‘ants and termites’.
4. The excuse cannot be put forward by a responsible officer of the police station.  They are, therefore, to be ignored by the Commission.  The officials concerned have to be held guilty for suppression of the information and offence punishable under the Act.
5. The actions and omissions on the part of the Sub Inspector are punishable under Section 218 and 219 of the IPC, the extracts of which are appended herewith. 

Section 218 - Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture; Section 219 - Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.

1. The actions also violate the agreement between ‘INDIA-UAE’ On Juridical And Judicial Cooperation and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 – Done at Vienna, Austria on 24 April 1963. 

1. The appellant has not received correct and accurate information sought in the application from the respondent till date. The statutory period of 30 days for furnishing the information is over. The information sought by the appellant is of public interest in nature and it is held and controlled by the respondent. The respondent has easy access to all the information sought by the appellant. The respondent has deliberately denied the information.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the inaction and also dereliction of duty by the Respondent. The appellant herein is denied the access to valuable information which would cause great harm, severe injury, and irreparable loss to him. Disclosure of this information will not lead to any genuine loss and hardships to anyone.
3. The inaction and refusal on the part of the respondent in not furnishing the information sought by the appellant is highly arbitrary and illegal.

In the circumstances, the appellant is aggrieved and accordingly prefer this appeal.

                                                             Prayer
Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Appellate Authority may be pleased to pass;

1. An order directing the respondent to furnish relevant and exact information to all the questions asked in the Annexure No. 1 application with certified copies of relevant documents.
2. An order of enquiry and also to initiate appropriate and necessary disciplinary action and other proceedings against the respondent in not providing the information sought for by the appellant, and also into his irresponsible and illegal action leading to the issuance of an evasive reply to the appellant vide his letter dated 01-4-2014, which, inter alia reads “……Due to the inconvenience in the file room and damage caused by termites and ants the file containing the final report  before 2010 were totally damaged”.
3. The appellant may kindly be exempted from payment of any fee under the Right to Information Act.

All the facts stated above are true and correct
Dated this the 14th day of May, 2014
Annexures
1.    True copy of the application dated 02-03-2014 submitted by the appellant.
 2.    True copy of the letter received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayur Police Station, dated 01-4-2014 (in Malayalam).
 3.    A copy of Power of Attorney (POA), both Arabic and English translation.

VERIFICATION

I, Panikkaveettil K. Jabir, S/o P.K. Moideenkutty,  aged 54 years, Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell, 5th Floor, Metro Plaza Building, Market Road, Kochi, Kerala, Pin: 682018, do hereby declare that all whatever stated above are true and correct.

Dated this the 14th day of May, 2014

APPELLANT

 

                                           

     ***