Vimal Kumar Rastogi was denied appearing in first appeal proceedings through counsel

Vimal K Rastogi <vimalkrastogi1946@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:53 AM

To: District Court Budaun <dcbud@allahabadhighcourt.in>

Most respected sir, please take a glass of the notice served to the appellant by the respected court of most respected district judge district Budaun.

कार्यालय जनपद न्यायाधीश, बदायूं।

पंजीकृत ढाक/ई०मेल द्वारा

प्रकीर्ण वाद संख्या - 01/2024 सम्बन्धित (जन सूचना अपील) विमल कुमार रस्तोगी बनाम केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी / प्रथम अपर जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश, बदायूं।

नोटिस बनाम विमल कुमार रस्तोगी निवासी गढिया शहबाजपुर, पटियाली सराय, थाना कोतवाली, जिला- बदायूं । पिनः- 243601

एतद्वारा आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि आपके द्वारा जन सूचना पोर्टल पर अपलोड जन सूचना अपील अन्तर्गत जन सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 विरूद्ध केन्द्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी, बदायूं कम्प्यूटर अनुभाग द्वारा दिनांक 02.09.2024 को प्राप्त हुई, जो 98 दिवस कालवाधित होने के कारण प्रकीर्ण वाद के रूप में पंजीकृत की गयी है। जिसमें आपकी सुनवाई हेतु दिनांक 09.09.2024 नियत थी। आप नियत तिथि 09.09.2024 को उपस्थित नहीं आये। न्यायहित में सुनवाई हेतु एक अवसर प्रदान किया जाता है।

अतः जन सूचना अपील से सम्बन्धित प्रकीर्ण वाद में सुनवाई हेतु आप मय पहचान पत्र दिनांक 20.09.2024 को सांय 04:30 बजे अधोहस्ताक्षरी के कार्यालय में उपस्थित होना सुनिश्चित करें।

प्रथम अपीलीय जन सूचना अथॉरिटी / जनपद न्यायाधीश, बदायूं।

Distict Judge Budaun

Short submissions of the appellant are as follows.

1- The matter concerns the deliberate denial of the information to the appellant in cryptic and mysterious way.

2- It is quite obvious that miscellaneous case number 01/2024 was listed for hearing on 9th September 2024 and attended by my representative respected advocate but he was not allowed unfortunately. 

3- The appellant accepts that he had to submit first appeal within 30 days from the date he received the denial of information from the Public Information Officer but because of not good health and old age he could not do such so for this lapse and to condone the delay the appellant request the most respected district judge.

4- Most respected sir, information is more valuable comparing to procedural lapse which compelled the applicant to submit first appeal.

5- Because of the unhealthy condition and old age of the appellant he preferred to appear in the case through his advocate and most respected advocate visited to attend the proceedings but he was not allowed by saying that this is procedure being followed under right to Information act 2005 where appearance of the appellant is essential in the proceeding physically.

6- Most respected sir, someone made call to the appellant and told that you had sent your advocate instead of appearing yourself in the proceedings physically. If next time you will not appear in the proceedings physically with your identity card then your case will be dismissed. The screen shot of the call and True caller detail is attached to this email representation.

7- Most respected sir, the apex court of India on number of times quoted in various judgements that right to reason is the indispensable part of sound judicial system and this phrase is not only applicable in judiciary but must be applied in the administrative system for good governance and better administration.

8- Most respected sir please provide the reason of not allowing the advocate to represent the appellant when the appellant is unhealthy and reached at the last stage of life.

9- Right to Reason is a concept that emphasizes the importance of rational thinking, critical analysis, and the freedom to question and seek evidence. It is often associated with the broader idea of intellectual freedom and the right to think independently without undue influence or coercion.

10- Most respected sir right to information act 2005 is the special act which is  regulated by own provisions and quasi judicial proceedings are carried out under this act. The compliance of its provisions are ensured by State information commissions and Central information commission. It invites the reasoned order from the first appellate authority and not make compulsory the presence of the information seeker before the first appellate authority even before commission. 

This is a humble request of the appellant to curb the violation of the provisions of right to Information act 2005 and be instrumental in providing information to the information seekers. For this, appellant shall ever pray you most respected sir.

Yours sincerely Vimal Kumar Rastogi 

[Quoted text hidden]

3 attachments

email_inlineImage_UDscxj

11K

1725991874859_114240.jpg

51K

IMG_20240910_235149.jpg

290K