CIC is well apprised of fact that there is an undue delay of I Year 3 months 25 days but no penalty on PIO Highcourt

 Rule of Law is failed in this largest democracy in the world is the root cause of our deterioration.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>

---

Mockery of R.T.I. Act 2005 by CPIO/Registrar and FAA/Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad 2 messages

---

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>	12 October 2018 at 15:18
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in> Cc: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, registrar-cic@nic.in Bcc: cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup@up.nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in
An application under article 32 of the constitution of India. To                    Hon'ble chief justice of India/Companion Judges                                 Supreme court, New Delhi, India   Subject-Our fundamental/Human Rights are no more safe if the CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad and its first appellate authority Registrar General itself are violators of our rights. Here protectors are predators and there is no expectation of justice from any quarter. With due respect and regard to Hon’ble Sir, the appellant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows. An enquiry under article 51 A of the constitution of India as a step towards the betterment of the Society.  1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that  51A. Fundamental duties  It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the  Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag  and the National Anthem;(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism  and the spirit of inquiry and reform; (i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective  activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour  and achievement  . 2 -It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Mockery of Right to Information Act 2005 by the public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Registrar General didn’t entertain the first appeal because he didn’t receive the first appeal as told by the assistant central public information officer Pankaj Shrivastava to the central information commission but there is ample evidence that office of                                   Registrar general/ First appellate authority                                    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad                                    Allahabad Pin Code:- 211017 Uttar Pradesh received the despatch 30/01/2017 on 01/02/2017 ipso fact obvious from this online tracking-Delivered On Allahabad High Court S.O 01/02/2017 Event Details For EU738301755IN Current Status: Item delivered at Allahabad High Court S.O Date Time Office Event 01/02/2017 12:49:00 Allahabad High Court S.O Item delivered  3-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that   CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 through his communication dated 22-March-2018 and made available to the applicant on 24-March-2018 after the hearing dated-23-March-2018 took place in the central information commission where assistant CPIO claimed to provide the sought information ipso facto obvious from his own communication Judgment of the central information commission. At the place of 30 days, CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad took 1 year 3 months 25 days in denying a sought information. Moreover, First Appellate Authority/ Registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad didn’t deem it fit to consider the appeal submitted under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. The hearing took place before CIC on 23-March-2018 and aforementioned lacunae on the part of public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad was brought up by the applicant before chief information commissioner of India but the outcome remained null ipso facto obvious from the attached scanned copy of the judgment of chief information commissioner of India. 4-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that To                                 Registrar general/ First appellate authority                                    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad                                    Allahabad Pin Code:- 211017 Uttar Pradesh Subject- Regarding non-compliance of subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005. When the applicant fully confirmed that communication received in the office of Registrar general and he didn’t take any action on the appeal then filed the second appeal quite obvious if Hon’ble Sir may visit on the following link- https://www.yogi.systems/2017/01/first-appeal-filed-because-cpio-high.html With this representation also the respective documentary evidence are attached proving the receive of appeal by the office of the registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad. 5-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that sought information denied but in compilation and collation of information CPIOtook 1 year 3 months and 25 days in denying the sought information. Whether it is a reflection of a healthy democracy? This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? This is the need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.                                  Yours sincerely Date-12-10-2018              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001 4 attachments Dispatch record of Appeal submitted to Registrar General High court.pdf 1055K Public authority High court of judicature CPIO made mockery of RTI.pdf 1072K Undue deliberate delay by CPIO Highcourt condoned by CIC.pdf 950K Mockery of Right to Information Act and tyranny in Highcourt.pdf 1827K

---

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>	20 October 2018 at 19:24
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in> Cc: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, registrar-cic@nic.in
When CIC is well apprised with the fact that there is an undue delay of I Year 3 months 25 days, then how it reached on the conclusions that there is no malafide intention on the part of CPIO and Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad. There is proved fact that that office of the registrar general received the First Appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 and he deliberately not entertained the appeal which shows his insolence to provisions of the transparency act but it did not occupy the place in the order of CIC. Whether supremacy of the law becomes dwarfs before the influential responsible public functionaries if yes ipso facto obvious then where is the rule of law? Whether in the aforementioned matter law was not discriminating? I have spent Rs.250 plus Rs.86 as commission in order to get demand draft why I will be satisfied with the denial of sought information? It has been a trend in the judiciary especially High court of Judicature at Allahabad not to provide sought information as they dislike transparency and accountability in its function otherwise anarchy may end from the system. I have spent more than Rs.1800 in the High court and its subordinate courts but they never provided any information. Whether such an outlook is not terrific?  Dicey’s theory has three pillars based on the concept that “a government should be based on principles of law and not of men”, these are: Supremacy of Law:  This has always been the basic understanding of rule of law that propounds that the law rules over all people including the persons administering the law. The lawmakers need to give reasons that can be justified under the law while exercising their powers to make and administer the law. Equality before the Law:  While the principle of supremacy of law sets in place cheques and balances over the government on making and administering the law, the principle of equality before the law seeks to ensure that the law is administered and enforced in a just manner. It is not enough to have a fair law but the law must be applied in a just manner as well. The law cannot discriminate between people in matters of sex, religion, race etc. This concept of the rule of law has been codified in the Indian Constitution under Article 14 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the preamble and Article 7. Predominance of legal spirit:  In including this as a requirement for the rule of law, Dicey’s belief was that it was insufficient to simply include the above two principles in the constitution of the country or in its other laws for the state to be one in which the principles of rule of law are being followed. There must be an enforcing authority and Dicey believed that this authority could be found in the courts. The courts are the enforcers of the rule of law and they must be both impartial and free from all external influences. Thus the freedom of the judicial becomes an important pillar to the rule of law. In modern parlance Rule of Law has come to be understood as a system which has safeguards against official arbitrariness, prevents anarchy and allows people to plan the legal consequences of their actions.