District judge Lucknow denied information after taking Rs. 200 as RTI Fee arbitrarily to Dinesh Pratap Singh such is transparency of judiciary

An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 against the denial of information from point 1 to 3 by the central public information officer / Additional district Judge through its representative / agent Human Rights Defender Yogi M. P. Singh/ Mahesh Pratap Singh S/O Rajendra Pratap Singh whose Aadhar card is attached to this appeal as page 8 of the attached annexures.

To

District Judge Lucknow

ADDRESS:- District & Sessions Court Lucknow

Kaisarbagh; P.S.-Wazeerganj;

Lucknow-226001 (Uttar Pradesh) India

Prayer-This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the denial of information in the R.T.I. No. -49 /2021 of the appellant Dinesh Pratap Singh S/O Angad Prasad Singh submitted on 18 Nov 2021 ipso facto obvious from the attached document.

Appellant with due respect invites the kind attention of the First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow to the following points/submissions as follows.

1-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir following is the subject matter of the R.T.I. Application of the appellant in the matter concerned.

To seek information regarding the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow. Colour photographs of the communication attached to this RTI Application as first two pages of the attached document. For more information, vide attached annexure 1 and 2.

This implies that information sought regarding the aforementioned communication / representation sent by the appellant which was received in the office of District Judge Lucknow on 16/10/2019.

Sought Information-Appellant seeks following information point-wise.
1-Please provide notings made by the competent staff of the district court Lucknow on aforementioned representation cum questionnaire.
2-Please provide the current status of the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow.
3-Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system consequently information seeker is seeking reason if communication is not reached to its destination.

2-I pray before the Honourable Sir aforementioned three point information denied by the central public information officer / Additional district Judge court room 1 on the flimsy ground that this information is accessible to him as information sought is in the form of a questionnaire. Whether the aforementioned sought information is in the form of questions. For detail, vide attached pages 2 and 3 of annexures received yesterday by the appellant.

3-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow is the supervisory body of the district court Lucknow and whatever correspondences are made are addressed to Honourable District Judge Lucknow and under Right to Information Act 2005 whether appellant can not seek information regarding status of the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow.

From the speed post tracking, it is quite obvious that communication was dispatched on 13/10/2019 and received in the office of District Judge Lucknow on 16/10/2019.

4-I pray before the Honourable Sir order dated 07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad was bypassed by the Lucknow Development Authority and carried out execution of the registry and also bypassed by Home secretary, commissioner of police Lucknow and Station officer police station Ashiana Lucknow as respondent number 1, 2 and 3. by grabbing the land and house and slapping serious charges on the appellant and his family members and now the same blunder is being committed by your subordinate court bypassing order dated 07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad.

5-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir whether any communication received by your office is judicial work and concerns the administration undoubtedly not. Processing of my communication from the office of district judge to

Case Type: Cri. Case

Filing Number: 4003282/2011Filing Date: 26-04-2011

Registration Number: 4003282/2011Registration Date: 10-09-2013

CNR Number: UPLK04-004775-2011

Case Status

First Hearing Date: 13th August 2012

Next Hearing Date: 21st March 2022

Case Stage: Evidence

Court Number and Judge: 29-A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29

Petitioner and Advocate1) State of Uttar Pradesh

Advocate- e

Respondent and Advocate1) DINESH PRATAP SINGH

Acts

Under Act(s) Under Section(s)

INDIAN PENAL CODE 406,420,448

FIR Details

Police Station: ASHIYANA

Case Transfer Details within Establishment

Registration Number Transfer Date From Court Number

and Judge To Court Number

and Judge

4003282/2011 03-04-2018 40 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI

4003282/2011 05-01-2021 71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 29 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29

is pure non judicial work. Appellant has sought the information concerning the non judicial work carried out in the office of district judge Lucknow and central public information officer / Additional district Judge illegally withheld the sought information must be taken into account by the First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow.

6-I pray before the Honourable Sir order dated 07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the staircase so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Respondnt1-Secretary Dept. of home 2-Police commissioner Lucknow 3-SHO police station -Ashiana,

Moreover, Honourable Justice in its order said that the raised matter is civil and amenable by filing a title suit before the court or authority.

7-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir in the open court hearing,the administration of justice requires hearing the cases and complaints of the litigants through their legal representatives/advocates and by the Judges in open courts. 'Open courts', refers to proceedings conducted before a court of law in full public view.

It is most surprising that the subordinate court is running away from taking perusal of order dated 07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad and office monitoring body running away from transparency and accountability ipso facto.

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 arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray for you, Hon’ble Sir.

Yours sincerely

Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911,

Date-23-01-2022 On behalf of

Dinesh Pratap Singh C/O Yogi M. P. Singh

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Shri Laxmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Booked At

Booked On

Destination Pincode

Tariff

Article Type

Delivery Location

Delivery Confirmed On

Ganesh Ganj SO Mirzapur

24/01/2022 12:59:40

226001

47.20

Inland Speed Post

Lucknow GPO

28/01/2022 17:14:23

Event Details For : EU620500276IN

Current Status : Item Delivery Confirmed

Date

Time

Office

Event

28/01/2022