Rule 25 of the Hon’ble High Court (
Right to Information) Rules 2006 is applicable for documents which are part of the paper book. Representation dated 13th October 2019 has been forwarded by the District judge to the concerned magistrate but what happened thereafter no one knows. Before denying information, CPIO must tell the name of the court of which this representation is the part of proceedings.
Hearing room-Court-S1
Date of hearing- 1st April 2025
According to central public information officer, Ms. Manjula Sarkar /Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act Court No. 03 Lucknow
It is to be informed that the appellant Shri Yogi M.P. Singh had applied online under the Right to Information. On the above basis, the Central Public Information Officer rejected the application of the applicant on 04.01.2025 as it was covered under Rule 25 of the Hon’ble High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006. The answer to the question mentioned in the information sought by the appellant under RTI has been given online by this office on 04.01.2025. A copy of which is attached with this letter.
Therefore, this second appeal is also liable to be dismissed as being without merit on the above grounds.
Date 27.03.2025
(Miss Manjula Sarkar) Central Public Information Officer /Special Judge Prevention of Corruption, Act Court No.-03 Lucknow. For more details, please take a glance at the attached PDF document to this representation.
Short submissions of the appellant are as follows.
1-Sought information by the appellant is as follows.
The appellant is seeking information concerning his representation dated 13th October 2019. CPIO District court Lucknow may provide the copy of the notings made by the accountable staff of district court Lucknow on the representation dated 13th october 2019 Which is not an integral part of court proceedings Case Number: Cri. Case/4003282/2011.
Noticeable-Representation dated 13th October 2019 Is not a part of the paper book of Case Number: Cri. Case/4003282/2011.
According to section 25 of Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, Central
Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any information, which can be obtained under the provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts.
If representation dated 13th october 2019 is the part of court proceedings then information concerning it can be obtained under the General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts.
Most respected Sir,central public information officer can only provide information concerning the representation because it is not a part of court proceedings i.e. not a part of the paper book of court proceedings.
2- The appellant submits before the most respected Sir ,Representation dated 13 October 2019 of Dinesh Pratap Singh did not reach the concerned court despite the order passed by the District Judge Lucknow as ordered on 16th October 2019. Here this question arises: who overlooked the order passed by the District Judge Lucknow on 16 October 2019? More than 4 years have passed but the questionnaire sent by Dinesh Pratap Singh still has not reached the concerned court. It is obvious that the questionnaire was sent by the applicant/Dinesh Pratap Singh to the District Judge Lucknow addressing the judicial member concerned and district judge forwarded the questionnaire to the concerned court by issuing the direction on 16th October 2019.
3-CPIO District court Lucknow may provide the copy of the notings made by the accountable staff of district court Lucknow on the representation dated 13th October 2019 Which is not the integral part of court proceedings Case Number: Cri. Case/4003282/2011.
4-Most respected Sir, Central Public Information Officer in district court Lucknow rejected the RTI application of the information seeker as follows. Status REQUEST REJECTED as on 04/01/2025, Reason for Rejection :- Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.
According to section 25 of Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, Central Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any information, which can be obtained under the provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts.
Such information may be obtained by adhering to the prescribed procedure and payment of fees prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, or General Rules (Civil/Criminal), as the case may be.
5-Whatever procedure was told the applicant is applicable in the cases pending before the courts whether it may be high court of judicature or be lower courts.
Most respected sir, the appellant is seeking information as-CPIO District court Lucknow may provide the copy of the notings made by the accountable staff of district court Lucknow on the representation dated 13th October 2019 Which is not the integral part of court proceedings Case Number: Cri. Case/4003282/2011.
6-It has been categorically expressed by the appellant in the rti application that notings sought made on the communication not the part of any paper book of case pending or disposed of in the Court of law.
7-Thus the rejection of the RTI application by the central public information officer is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the spirit of the provisions of right to information act 2005. The matter concerns the serious irregularities and violation of the order passed by the Lucknow bench of high court of Judicature at Allahabad which is the root cause concerned judicial members are running away from making any comments in the matter.
8-The Right to information act 2005 was introduced by the government of India to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities but it could not achieve its objective even after 19 years of implementation. This is a humble request of the appellant to the most respected sir to direct the central public information officer to provide the information to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with the law.
Date=29/03/2025 O God help me
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.