गृह सचिव महोदय सूचना देने से क्यों भाग रहे है जब की उच्च न्यायालय आदेश में वे प्रतिवादी संख्या १ है

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
मामला गृह सचिव उत्तर प्रदेश शासन से सम्बंधित है क्यों की उनका रोल एक सुपरवाइजरी बाड़ी का है |
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 22 November 2019 at 02:23
To: shome@nic.in, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, hgovup@up.nic.in, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup@up.nic.in

  Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 श्री मान गृह सचिव महोदय प्रतिवादी संख्या -१ है इसलिए  माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करना उनकी जिम्मेदारी सर्वोपरि थी | किन्तु जिस तरह से लखनऊ आशियाना थाने का थानाध्यक्ष कल्याण सिंह सागर ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को दरकिनार करके मानवता को शर्मशार करने वाली घटना को अंजाम दिया है और खुद को सक्षम न्यायालय बना  कर न्याय किया है उससे न्यायालय, शासन और पुलिस सभी को शर्मसार होना चाहिए और स्थिति स्पष्ट करना चाहिए किन्तु आप की चुप्पी महोदय खुद रहस्यमयी है | इससे बड़ा भ्रष्टाचार का उदाहरण कहा मिलेगा की माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के स्पष्ट आदेश के बावजूद प्रदेश सचिवालय के नाक के नीचे लखनऊ पुलिस मकान कब्जा करवा दी जो की श्री मान जी की ओर से उच्च न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत हलफनामा जो की उपनिरीक्षक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया था उसको झूठा साबित कर दिए अर्थात आप द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय को गुमराह किया गया | 
जनसूचना अधिकार २००५ के तहत मागी गयी सूचनाओं को न दे कर सिर्फ यही सिद्ध किया जा रहा है की आज भी वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधिकारी मामले पर पर्दा दाल रहे है और भ्रष्टाचार को छुपा रहे है जो किसी ढंग से उचित नही है | कृपया मामले की गंभीरता को समझते हुए नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करे और प्रार्थी को सूचना उपलब्ध कराये जो की लोकहित में होगा |
An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 as PIO did not consider it fit to even communicate to the information seeker.
To
                                                                   First Appellate Authority in the                                                                              office of Principal Secretary, Department of Home
                                              District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226004
Prayer-Public Information Officer not only violated subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005 but acted against the spirit of the august act by adopting a reluctant approach to the R.T.I. Communique dated 06/10/2019 which was received in the office of PIO on 10/10/2019 quite obvious from online tracking of the speed post which is given below for perusal of Hon’ble Sir.
Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following is the online tracking of the speed registered post through which aforementioned R.T.I. Communique was sent.
Event Details For EU787012644IN
Current Status: Item Delivery Confirmed
Date
Time
Office
Event
10/10/2019
17:56:38
Lucknow GPO
Item Delivery Confirmed
10/10/2019
12:17:41
Lucknow GPO
Out for Delivery
09/10/2019
09:26:43
Lucknow GPO
Item Received
08/10/2019
03:54:06
Lucknow NSH
Item Dispatched
08/10/2019
00:53:01
Lucknow NSH
Item Bagged
07/10/2019
23:32:58
Lucknow NSH
Item Received
07/10/2019
05:51:53
MA Mirzapur TMO
Item Dispatched
07/10/2019
05:44:19
MA Mirzapur TMO
Received at TMO
07/10/2019
01:03:57
Mirzapur ICH
Item Dispatched
07/10/2019
00:56:13
Mirzapur ICH
Item Bagged
06/10/2019
20:28:06
Mirzapur ICH
Item Received
06/10/2019
20:13:53
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Dispatched
06/10/2019
20:12:54
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Bagged
06/10/2019
19:34:22
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Booked
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that through aforementioned R.T.I. Application dated- 06/10/2019 received in the office of public authority on 10/10/2019, the following information was sought.
CPIO may be directed to provide the following information point wise as sought.
Most respected Superintendent of police, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant aggrieved Dinesh Pratap Singh, wants to draw the kind attention of the revered Sir to the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 as follows It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to 7 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. Since it is not a case in the strict sense of illegal detention, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent to produce the detenue in the court and allow her to live free at her home but since she can not take necessary steps for taking the remedy in the competent court, therefore it is simply ordered that the alleged detenue Smt Anuradha Singh shall be allowed to go out of the house and respondent number 4 to 7 shall open the lock of the door and open the door so that Smt Anuradha Singh may come out and take appropriate remedy. Dated07032006 Signed by the concerned Honourable Justices of Division bench of Lucknow.
1-Please provide the G.O./Circular/Legislation which empowers the Lucknow police as the competent court having the power to grant the civil remedies or if any constitutional functionary delegated any such power as aforementioned must be revealed to information seeker in detail.
2-Please, provide access to information regarding the reasoned decision taken by the S.S.P. Lucknow in the grievances aforementioned and which detail is available as page 1 and page 2 of the annexure. Right to reason is an indispensable part of the sound administrative system.
Applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the respondent number First who is Secretary of home department, civil secretariat, Government of Uttar Pradesh and respondent number second who is senior superintendent of police Lucknow as well as the station house officer police station Ashiyana who is the respondent number 3 in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 filed in the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad filed by Anuradha Singh also named Guddi also named Aradhana Singh through her mother Beena Singh wife of Brijraj Singh also Beena Singh wife of Netrpal Singh. Whether in the same matter, to get remedy from various redressal bodies and get public aid by changing the name is not illegal? This lady took the land of LDA by bearing the name of Guddi daughter of Brijraj Singh and in order to seek remedy from High court of Judicature at Allahabad, she took the new name Anuradha Singh and now she has been Aradhna Singh whether it is not a mockery of the law of land? Sir, please take a glance of the affidavit submitted by the sub-inspector Satyesh Prakash Dwivedi in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. This affidavit is on behalf of the respondent number-1, 2 and 3 so it is the responsibility of concerned to maintain the sanctity of the affidavit. Sir order of the High court of judicature was for respondent number 1.2 and 3. Sir how can it be justified that Aradhna changed name of Guddi and Anuradha could manage the support of respondent number 1, 2 and 3 to get illegal possession of the land and house of the applicant by robbing the household articles of the applicant and fabricating the false charges not only on the applicant but also on his wife and daughter? Whether this step of the aforementioned respondents had not undermined the authority of High court of judicature and against the spirit of the affidavit submitted by them through the aforementioned sub-inspector as the spirit of the affidavit was crushed by them? Whether High court of judicature had ordered to slap false and fabricated charges on the applicant and his wife and daughter as a conspiracy to provide illegal possession to Anuradha Singh now Aradhana Singh and loot the valuables of the applicant by breaking the Locks of rooms? Whether it was the motive of the High court in passing the order that police may play the role of a competent court and competent administrative body as ordered in the writ of multi named personality Anuradha Singh to seek a civil remedy before the competent court? Whether the civil remedy is provided by the police in this largest democracy in the world and the police is the competent court?
3-Please provide the detail of the privileges granted to Lucknow police specially Ashiyana police station which not only overlooked the direction of the Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad but also persecuted not only the applicant but also slapped serious charges on the wife and daughter of the information seeker.
4-Please, provide access to information which caused the police to submit forged documents before the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad on behalf of respondent number -1,2 and 3 as later all those documents were declare forged when police acted to provide civil remedy as competent court in order to comply the order passed by High court.
5-Please provide the detail of name and designation of the staffs of the Lucknow police who remained instrumental in declaring the impugned land and house of the applicant as the property of Aradhana Singh and robbing the household valuables by breaking the locks of rooms when family fled from the terror of police, third name of the multi named Lady.
For more detail, vide attached R.T.I. Communique in the P.D.F. form.
 3-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that in subsection 2 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005 stated as follows-
  (2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request. 
 4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 No. 22 of 2005
[15th June, 2005.] An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Whether cryptic denial of the sought information by taking provisions of transparency act under teeth would be plausible by misinterpreting the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005? Undoubtedly act of PIO is ultra vires to august act i.e, Right to Information Act 2005 and reflection of the sheer insolence.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that since the working of public authority is not transparent and accountable and corruption is rampant in its office so they are not providing sought information. According to subsection 1 d section 4 of the Right to Information Act 2005, it shall be the obligatory duty of every public authority to provide the reasons for its decisions to the parties concerned but here PIO is only seated/ procrastinating on the R.T.I. Application nothing else.
                              This is a humble request of the 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.                                                         
 Please provide the aforementioned sought information point wise as sought by the information seeker. For this applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
Date-22/11/2019                                         Yours sincerely
                                                      Dinesh Pratap Singh S/O Mr Angad Prasad Singh
C/O Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Lakshmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.


2 attachments
PIO Home secretary.pdf
1006K
PIO Home secretary.docx
1391K

3 comments on गृह सचिव महोदय सूचना देने से क्यों भाग रहे है जब की उच्च न्यायालय आदेश में वे प्रतिवादी संख्या १ है

  1. जनसूचना अधिकार २००५ के तहत मागी गयी सूचनाओं को न दे कर सिर्फ यही सिद्ध किया जा रहा है की आज भी वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधिकारी मामले पर पर्दा दाल रहे है और भ्रष्टाचार को छुपा रहे है जो किसी ढंग से उचित नही है | कृपया मामले की गंभीरता को समझते हुए नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करे और प्रार्थी को सूचना उपलब्ध कराये जो की लोकहित में होगा |

  2. Undoubtedly department of law must play positive role in accordance with the law.
    Now it is obligation of the department of law to take initiatives in order to damage control.If there is explicit order to get civil remedy from competent court, then why concerned made mockery of law of land by taking under teeth direction of the court.
    Registration Number DPLAW/R/2019/60002
    Name Dinesh Pratap Singh
    Date of Filing 23/11/2019
    Status RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 23/11/2019
    Nodal Officer Details
    Telephone Number 0522-2238108
    Email-ID Splsec.csec.lu-up@gmail.com

  3. Whether it is not reflection of failure of rule of law ?
    Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 श्री मान गृह सचिव महोदय प्रतिवादी संख्या -१ है इसलिए माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करना उनकी जिम्मेदारी सर्वोपरि थी | किन्तु जिस तरह से लखनऊ आशियाना थाने का थानाध्यक्ष कल्याण सिंह सागर ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को दरकिनार करके मानवता को शर्मशार करने वाली घटना को अंजाम दिया है और खुद को सक्षम न्यायालय बना कर न्याय किया है उससे न्यायालय, शासन और पुलिस सभी को शर्मसार होना चाहिए और स्थिति स्पष्ट करना चाहिए किन्तु आप की चुप्पी महोदय खुद रहस्यमयी है |

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: