FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVTs AND PSUs

PSUs [ specially banks and insurance companies] and Central/State Govt. departments try to harass and tire out common citizens, with huge money power and expertise at public cost at their disposal, by resorting to repeated appeals up to divisional bench of apex court, without any accountability of officers to public.

I humbly  quote following judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,  against such  frivolous litigation: 

            

 A] Judgement dated 04-09-2012 of in Civil Appeal No. 6261 OF 2012--   Gurgaon       Gramin Bank Versus Smt. Khazani

   B] Judgment dated 13-01-2014 in SLP (C) No. 39434 of 2013- Haryana Dairy   Dev Coop Federation Ltd v/s Jagdish Lal.

C] Judgement dated 26-07-2010 in civil appeal No. 5646 of 2010 -Union of       India Vs Pritilata Nanda

D] Judgement dated 01-07-2015 in civil appeal No. 1123 of 2015 - State of   Rajasthan and Ors.V/s MahendraNath Sharma

 E] Judgement dated 22-09-2014 in civil appeal No. 9043 of 2014 -- Vijay    Shankar Pandey V/sUnion of India & Another

There is dire need to have a National Litigation Policy against such wasteful and anti-citizen actions of govt departments and undertakings. Such litigation choke judicial system by over burdening and there are chances of corruption by public servants while assigning work to advocates for such legal battle against common citizen in a democratic country. Usually it is ego-massaging of govt officers or politicians and show of power against helpless citizen.

I have been repeatedly chasing Ministry of Law and Justice for a National Litigation Policy in India. Attempts were made in 2010 by UPA Govt but did not materialise. Hopefully pro-citizen NDA/BJP Govt at Center will take positive steps at the earliest. 

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs –Need of National Litigation Policy

Date: 12-03-2016                             SUGGESTION-Addendum                       By email

To,

Shri D. V. Sadananda Gowda

Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice

Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt of India

A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001

secy-jus@gov.in, rejinder.kashyap@gov.in

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs –Need of National Litigation Policy

Kindly refer to my suggestion dated 08-08-2014 and 13-05-2015 [copies enclosed]. I am sure Ministry must be cogitating on my suggestion, in view of BJP/NDA Govt’s stated policy of citizen centricity and good governance.

To contribute in good governance and to relieve common Indians from frivolous litigation by Govts/PSUs etc at public cost to harass public, I respectfully draw your kind attention to report of expert committee of defense minister 2015 which is uploaded at http://mod.gov.in/writereaddata/Reportcc.pdf.

I may add that prolonged frivolous litigation by Govts/PSUs also adds to avenue for corruption in fees and out-of-pocket expenses payable to advocates, in addition to clogging courts, which further delay genuine litigations. I hope you and your ministry will attach due priority of such a National Litigation Policy [in some other name], though it was suggested in 2010 by then UPA law minister. BJP is known to continue congress policies which are in the interest of nation and citizenry like MGNREGA etc.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs

Date: 13-05-2015                             SUGGESTION-Addendum                       By email

To,

Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice

Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt of India

A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001

secy-jus@gov.in, anilgulati@hotmail.com

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs –Need of National Litigation Policy

Kindly refer to my suggestion dated 08-08-2014 [copy enclosed]. I am sure Ministry must be cogitating on my suggestion, in view of BJP Govt’s stated policy of citizen centricity and good governance.

I am attaching copy of judgement dated 07-05-2015 of Hon’ble NCDRC in revision petitions No. 285 to 289 of 2011, which echo plight by common citizens when dealing with govt and its undertakings, which can afford to fight out at public cost against poor public without accountability to public or anyone under the sun in a democratic country wasting public money which can be otherwise used for development.  Corruption as cut in advocate fees can also not be ruled out.

I am sure that Insurance Company will definitely challenge this decision in Hon’ble Supreme Court naturally at public cost and risk. There is therefore urgent need of putting in place National Litigation Policy and honestly implementing it, otherwise beneficiaries of PMJJBY AND PMSBY will meet the same fate, as did appellants in enclosed judgement.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Encls: a/a

Copies to:

1. Dept of Financial Services, MoF, New Delhi Email: jsins-dfs@nic.in

2. IRDAI, Hyderabad Email: consumerfeedback@irda.gov.in

LEGAL AID

Date: 10-05-2015                                                                               By email

To,

Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice

Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt of India

A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001

secy-jus@gov.in

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject:  Legal Aid Scheme

I thank BJP Govt for taking series of steps to make life of common Indians easy when dealing with Govt. I have been witness to real good governance in Gujarat in last one decade. I submit my humble suggestions for your kind consideration:

1] Mostly junior advocates or those advocates who do not get clients are allotted under legal aid scheme. This affects end result of the case and mostly litigants stand to lose. I suggest that at par with Corporate Social Responsibility of public limited companies, all advocates on roll should be compulsorily required to personally handle at least five cases per financial year, two of which should be cases involving larger public interest.

2] Depending upon gravity of case, legal aid committee should suggest at least five advocates to the applicant, with brief bio-data of advocates, so that he can choose proper advocate. Stock exchanges under arbitration scheme give such options to the investors who have disputes with financial intermediaries etc.

3] Legal aid authority should put on its website, district and High/Supreme Court-wise data regarding cases aided by it and number of cases where aided litigant succeeded in cases with percentage of successful cases.

4] Legal aid scheme should be extended to Consumer Forums/State Commissions and NCDRC.

5] Advocates who perform well should be publicly appreciated including some monetary benefit.

I am sure your Ministry will cogitate on my suggestions which are conveyed as part of public participation in governance.

Thanking you,

MISUSE OF SARFAESI ACT 2002

Date:  18-08-2014                                                                                    By email

To, 

Director [BO-I, Recovery & OL]

Dept of Financial Services

MoF, Govt of India, New Delhi

dirrec-dfs@nic.in

                        Suggestion: Amendment to SARFAESI ACT 2002

             Section 31.h of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 provides that this act will not be applicable to any security interest for securing repayment of any financial asset not exceeding one lakh rupees.

            I am witness to a high handed approach of officers of a Public Sector Bank in 2007, where under the above act, a sound service provider availing housing loan of Rs.300000/- and sound service instrument loan of Rs.80000/-, was thrown out of  his flat for an overdue amount of nearly Rs.2500/- . He and his wife with two minor sons were kept out on road for 365 days without business, as sound service instruments [mikes, loudspeakers etc] too were locked in the flat with all house hold articles not financed by bank. The family, 15 year old business and education of two sons were ruined, while banks are mandated to alleviate poverty. This atrocity was inflicted as he did not repeatedly entertain 4 officers of rural branch and zonal office, Rajkot at week-ends with liquor and non-veg – one type of corruption in kind. The officers took disadvantage of his semi-literacy and lack of English knowledge. CMD of the Bank also did not intervene, when approached.

           

            Thus small borrowers are subjected to inhuman recovery process under this act. It is possible that this act may be being misused for extraneous consideration by bank officers in other cases of small borrowers. Big borrowers have battery of advocates to guide them how to ditch the act or middlemen to manipulate bank  officers to avoid effective action for recovery.

            To avoid such horrible misuse, I humbly suggest that amount of one lakh rupees in said section be replaced by five lakh rupees at least. In fact borrowers with loan up to Rs.5.00 lakhs are normally small self-employed entrepreneurs. They must be kept out of clutches of Securitization Act wherein bank officers act like private money lenders or even worst.

            This suggestion is also in tandem with genuine pro-common citizen policy of new BJP govt at Delhi. I hope you will push for such an amendment as part of weeding out obsolete anti-citizen laws and rules.

Yours faithfully,

Tenant Verification/Registration

Date: 20-07-2014                                                                             By email and post

To,

Hon’ble Home Minister,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India

North Block, New Delhi 110001
Email: jscpg-mha@nic.in

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: Tenant Registration/Verification by Police –Problems and Suggestions

I thank BJP Govt for taking series of steps to make life of common Indians easy when dealing with Govt. I have been witness to real good governance in Gujarat in last one decade.

At present Police Commissioners of various cities in the country issue notifications making it mandatory for landlords to register tenant for verification. These notifications are for short period of 60 days or so. Law abiding citizens face undernoted problems for compliance:

Problems:

1. Notifications are not published on websites of Police Commissioners or State Home Depts. Even short notices are not put in public domain/print media etc nor press note is issued to make citizens aware of notifications. Hence, even educated landlords are not aware of such notifications.

2. Police Commissioners would be perhaps exhibiting notifications on notice boards of their offices/other police stations, which hardly law abiding common men/women dare to visit routinely. Thus there is no effective communication of notifications to those, whom it is applicable for compliance.

3. When landlord is caught by police for non-registration, then only landlord comes to know of such notification, which may be in force at that point in time. This situation is then exploited by police or middlemen.

4. Thus even if a law abiding landlord wants to comply with notification, he is not in a position to do so, due to communication gap from Police to landlords.

5. Retail Corruption may be rampant in this matter at ground level.

6. Notifications are issued in State language and hence landlords not knowing local language fail to understand its contents.

7. At present notifications are issued for area covered by police commissioners of respective cities. Anti-national elements would be residing in nearby villages and towns and frequenting to the cities for which notifications are issued. Thus such notifications become ineffective, while causing hardships to law abiding landlords, generating ill-feeling towards govt and the ruling party. I doubt if such registration would have helped Govt and Police to contain anti-national activities.

8. Few days back, I read in news paper that a poor woman  with cut off legs had to climb 7^th or 9^th floor of the court building, since she was arrested for renting her house without police registration of tenant.

Suggestions:

I have following suggestions to ease out the problem facing common men:

A] A single notification for entire State [mentioning names of cities] should be issued by Home Department of States or State DGPs, whenever necessary, so that landlords are not required to search for individual cities in the State.

B] Notifications should be placed on websites of home departments of the States or of DGPs offices, with format and procedure for registration.

C] A gist of notifications should be published in two leading news papers of the State in Hindi, English and State language giving link of website for details.

D] Press notes may be issued by Home Departments or DGP offices, so that newspapers can carry news for public information.

E] Notifications should be trilingual – State language, Hindi and English

F] There should be online facility to register tenants relating to State as a whole. At present it is city-wise e.g. Ahmedabad, Pune, Indore etc. From address of property, information can be transmitted by the system to respective City Police Commissioners for necessary action. Online facility should generate printable/downloadable acknowledgements for record of landlords.

G] Social media like face book, twitter etc should be used by home departments of States or police departments to communicate issuance of notifications.

H] Tenants or landlords should not be called to police station but police personnel should visit the rented place for on-the-spot verification.

I] Landlords or tenants should be permitted to use recording devices during visit of police for enquiry.

J] For first instance of non-compliance landlord should be made to comply in a week time and warned, rather than taking punitive action against him. He may not be involved in deliberate defiance of notification, but out of lack of knowledge of such notification being in force.

K] SMSes /emails should be used to communicate to landlords [who have registered with police department as part of e-governance], of issuance of such notifications, if feasible.

L] If possible police should have small notice boards for its public related notifications at places which are frequented by public [like post offices, banks, libraries, some govt offices]. Police/Home department may send such notifications by post to head of such offices for exhibition on police notice boards placed in such offices.

M] It should not be mandatory to get NOC from police department, before renting, since NOC would be inordinately delayed and landlord will rent out without NOC. Just uploading or submitting prescribed details 15 days prior to renting may be sufficient.

I am sure your Ministry will cogitate on my suggestions which are conveyed as part of public participation in governance and issue advisory to States.

Thanking you,

: FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs

Date: 08-08-2014                 SUGGESTION                                 By email and post

To,

Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice

Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt of India

A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,

New Delhi-110 001

secy-jus@gov.in

anilgulati@hotmail.com

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY GOVT and PSUs –Need of National Litigation Policy

I thank BJP Govt for taking series of steps to make life of common Indians easy when dealing with Govt. I have been witness to real good governance in Gujarat in last one decade.

I humbly make suggestion for improving justice to common Indians less taxing:

National Litigation Policy was published by your predecessor in 2010, but for unknown reasons it could not be implemented. At present govt departments [Central and States] and PSUs [ specially banks and Insurance Companies], go on fighting up to constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, against a common Indian. They do so at the cost of public money with no accountability of officers to public. There is hardly any policy or audit or prescribed procedure for taking decisions for filing of endless appeals. Many times it is just ego-massaging exercise of officers. Kick-backs from advocates’ fees cannot be ruled out. The common men get tired of litigation because of cost, time and expertise, in addition to mental tension and agony. Such appeals choke the courts giving rise to delay for decades.

I append below cases where Govt or PSUs went on misusing their financial power at public cost to “legally” crush common Indian:

A] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6261 OF 2012

Gurgaon Gramin Bank Versus Smt. Khazani

Judgement dated 04-09-2012

B] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP (CIVIL) NO(s). 39434 OF 2013

HARYANA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED v/s JAGDISH LAL

Date of judgement 13-01-2014

C] HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CM (M) No. 1021/2010 & CM No. 14150/2010

M/S National Textile Corporation Limited v/s Sh. Kunj Behari Lal

Judgment delivered on: 16-08-2010

These are tip of the iceberg, since I understand 50% pending cases in various courts and tribunals/consumer commissions are by or against Govt/PSUs. Due to delay in justice delivery, citizens are fast losing faith in judiciary and governments and are tempted to resort to short-cuts adding to illegal activities. Law violators do not care for govt or courts due to horrible delay.

For decades Central Govt has been talking of stopping frivolous litigation by Govt and improving justice delivery, but no effective steps are taken on the ground. I am sure BJP govt. is different and have genuine motive to make life of common Indian easy while seeking justice. I therefore humbly suggest that this Govt should revive NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY and sincerely implement with necessary changes.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Extracts you can use:

In Lucknow Development Authority V/S M .K. Gupta the Apex Court held that when public servants by malafide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice harassment and agony to common man, renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved. And the State or its instrumentality is duty bound to recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned. (1994) 1 SCC 24,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If   civilisation   is   not   to   perish   in   this   country   as   it   has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is  necessary   to  educate  ourselves   into  accepting  that,  respect   for   the   rights   of   individuals   is   the   true   bastion   of   democracy.   Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to   the   petitioner's   rights.   It   may   have   recourse   against   those officers."-  HON’BLE Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4  SCC 141                                                              

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, forms of accountability may differ but the basic idea remains the same that the holders of High Public Office having access to Public funds must be able to publicly justify their exercise of power not only as legally valid but also socially wise just and reasonable, chiefly designed to add something more to the quality of life of the people. Every exercise of Power depends on this ideal for its validity.

________________________________________________________________

“Act in discharge of official duty- Where public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, such offences have no connection with official duty, the official position only furnishing occasion or opportunity to do such acts.-AIR 1960 SC266.”

________________________________________________________________

“1. People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and duties. ” -Supreme Court on 18-02-2010 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1429-1430 OF 2010

________________________________________________________________

“……..The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption.” -Supreme Court of India Constitutional Bench in The State of UP v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 

________________________________________________________________

COMMON MAN AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

                      COMMON MAN AND HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

 IMP EXTRACTS FROM:

 JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/s. M.K. GUPTA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1993

CITATION: 1994 AIR 787  1994 SCC (1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307    1993 SCALE (4)370

1] …………Still more important issue is   the liability of payment. That is, should the society or the tax payer be burdened for oppressive and capricious act of the public officers or it be paid by those responsible for it. The administrative law of accountability of public authorities for their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has  taken  many strides.  It is now accepted both by this Court and English  Courts  that the  State  is  liable  to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of its employees.  In State of Gujarat  v. Memon  Mahomed Haji  Hasam  the order     of  the  High  Court directing  payment  of compensation for disposal  of  seized vehicles  without  waiting for the outcome  of decision  in appeal was  upheld  both on principle of  bailee's  'legal obligation  to preserve the property intact  and  also       the obligation to take reasonable care of it ... to return it in the same condition in  5 (1976) 2 SCC 917 6 (1990) 4 SCC 21 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 522: AIR 1990 SC 1849

2] …. ‘it is immaterial that the respondents had acted bonafide and in the interest of preservation of public health.  Their motive may be good but their orders are illegal.  They would accordingly be liable for any loss caused to the  appellants by  their action.' The theoretical concept that King can do no wrong has been abandoned in England itself and the State is  now held responsible for tortuous act of  its  servants.

3]. 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 behaviour before authorities  created under  the  statute  like  the commission  or the courts entrusted  with responsibility of maintaining the  rule  of law.   

4]….. For  such  acts  or omissions  the  loss  suffered has to be made  good  by  the authority  itself.  But when the sufferance is due to malafide or oppressive or capricious acts etc. of  a  public servant,   then  the  nature  of  liability  changes.  The   omission under the Act could determine such amount if  in its  opinion  the consumer suffered injury due to  what  is called misfeasance of the officers by the  English  Courts. Even  in  England  where award of  exemplary  or  aggravated damages for insult etc. to a person has now been held to  be punitive, exception has been carved out if the injury is due to, 'oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by  servants of the Government' (Salmond and Heuston on     the Law of Torts).

5]. Misfeasance in public office is explained by Wade in his book on Administrative Law thus:

 "Even where there is no ministerial duty  as   above, and even where no recognised tort such as   trespass,  nuisance, or  negligence           is committed, public authorities or officers  may    be liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or  injurious  wrong-doing.  There is  thus  a  tort  which  has been  called  misfeasance  in        public  office, and which includes  malicious    abuse of power, deliberate  maladministration, and  perhaps also other unlawful acts  causing injury." (p. 777)

6] ….. The  jurisdiction  and power of the courts  to      indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by  public authorities  is founded  as observed by  Lord   Hailsham  in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome13 on the principle  that,  an award  of  exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose  in vindicating the strength of law'.  An ordinary citizen or  a common man  is hardly equipped to match the  might  of  the State  or  its instrumentalities.  That is provided  by  the rule of law.  It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.  In Rookes v. Barnard14 it was  observed by Lord Devlin, 'the servants of the government are also the servants  of  the  people and the use of  their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service'.  A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse.  No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. 

7]….. .  Harassment of a common man by  public  authorities is socially  abhorring and  legally impermissible.It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of  helplessness. An  ordinary  citizen instead of  complaining  and  fighting succumbs  to  the  pressure of undesirable  functioning  in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of  compensation  for harassment by public  authorities          not only  compensates the individual, satisfies  him  personally but helps in curing social evil.  It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.

8]….. or semi-govemment offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires  action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them.

9]….. In Smith v. East Elloe Rural District  Council17 the  House  of Lords held that an action for  damages  might proceed against the clerk of a local authority personally on the  ground that he had procured the compulsory purchase  of the  plaintiff's property wrongfully and in bad  faith.

10]. In Farrington  v. Thomson18  the Supreme  Court of  Victoria awarded damages for exercising a power the authorities knew they  did not possess.A licensing inspector and  a  police officer      ordered the plaintiff to close his hotel and  cease supplying  liquor.   He         obeyed and filed  a  suit  for  the resultant loss.  The Court observed:

              

 "Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that  if  a public officer abuses his office, either  by             an  act  of omission or  commission,  and the consequence  of  that  is an  injury  to          an individual, an action     may  be  maintained   against such public officer."

11]…… Today   the  issue  thus  is  not  only  of  award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. ….. The authority empowered to  function under  a  statute while exercising power  discharges  public duty.  It has to act to subserve general welfare and  common good.  In discharging this duty honestly and bonafide, loss may  accrue  to any person.  And he may claim compensation which  may in circumstances be payable.   But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose?  In a modern    society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.  It is unfortunate that  matters which  require immediate attention linger on and the man  in the  street  is made to run from one end to  other  with  no result.  The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead.  Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength  to match  the  inaction  in public oriented  departments gets frustrated  and  it erodes the credibility  in the  system.

Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action  of administrative authority.   But where  it is  found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be  under  protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him    for capricious exercise of power ………..

12]…….When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It        is  the  tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those  who    are entrusted under the Act  to discharge  their  duties  in accordance  with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that          the Commission  when  it  is satisfied  that  a  complainant  is entitled  to compensation for harassment or mental agony  or oppression,  which  finding  of course should   be  recorded carefully  on material and convincing circumstances and  not lightly,  then it  should  further  direct  the  department concerned  to  pay the amount to the  complainant  from  the public fund immediately but to recover the same from  those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing  it proportionately where there are more  than one functionaries.

_________________________________________________________________________________

 [Emphasis added]

Note: Whenever you are harassed by public servants, please quote these extracts in your communication or attach it to your complaints. I have experienced positive effect of it in majority of cases, because now govt officers understand only legal language.

_________________________________________________________________________________