CIC fixed the date for hearing as information was not made available by High court of judicature at Allahabad.

Search
Results
Particulars
Description
CR Details
Diary Number/Year:
153887/2014
Diary
Date:
23-07-2014
File
No.
(Complaint/Appeal):
Dak
Status :
Forwarded
To CR, For Scrutiny
Sender Details
Sender
Belongs to :
Petitioner
Name:
MAHESH
PRATAP SINGH
Address
:
MOH-SUREKAPURAM,
DSITT-MIRZAPUR
Country
:
India
Results for Diary Number: 153887
Search
Results
Particulars
Description
CR Details
Diary Number/Year:
168641/2014
Diary
Date:
18-09-2014
File
No.
(Complaint/Appeal):
Dak
Status :
Forwarded
To CR, For Scrutiny
Sender Details
Sender
Belongs to :
Petitioner
Name:
YOGI M
P SINGH
Address
:
SUREKAPURAM
, JABALPUR ROAD, MIRZAPUR ,
Country
:
India
Results for Diary Number: 168641
Whether in this vast democracy in the world , information can be
sought by poor and illiterate under the Right to Information Act 2005 where
number of obstacles are created in the path of information seekers.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Apr 15
    to pmosb, supremecourt, urgent-action, cmup, hgovup, csup, secy-cic, registrar-cic, jsadmn-cic, jsmore-cic, dc.singh
Whether these second appeals would be ever heard by CIC or their
fortunes still to be decided by its secretariat or secretariat will be proved
stumbling block in seeking justice from CIC .
 Declaration
of Assets of Chief Information Commissioner / Information Commissioners
S.No.
Name
CIC / IC
Assets
1
Shri
Vijai Sharma
Information
Commissioner
2
Shri
Basant Seth
Information
Commissioner
3
Shri
Yashovardhan Azad
Information
Commissioner
4
Shri
Sharat Sabharwal
Information
Commissioner
5
Mrs
Manjula Prasher
Information
Commissioner
6
Shri
MA Khan Yusufi
Information
Commissioner
7
Prof
Madabhushanam Sridhar Acharyulu
Information
Commissioner
With due respect your applicant wants to draw
the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Whether the following submitted second appeals
would be ever heard by central information commission.
15 April 2015
12:36
Particulars
Description
CR Details
Diary Number/Year:
168641/2014
Diary
Date:
18-09-2014
File
No.
(Complaint/Appeal):
Dak
Status :
Forwarded
To CR, For Scrutiny
Sender Details
Sender
Belongs to :
Petitioner
Name:
YOGI M
P SINGH
Address
:
SUREKAPURAM
, JABALPUR ROAD, MIRZAPUR ,
Country
:
India
Results for Diary Number: 168641
Search Results
Particulars
Description
CR Details
Diary Number/Year:
153887/2014
Diary
Date:
23-07-2014
File
No.
(Complaint/Appeal):
Dak
Status :
Forwarded
To CR, For Scrutiny
Sender Details
Sender
Belongs to :
Petitioner
Name:
MAHESH
PRATAP SINGH
Address
:
MOH-SUREKAPURAM,
DSITT-MIRZAPUR
Country
:
India
Results for Diary Number: 153887
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, secypg <secypg@nic.in>, ddpg2-arpg <ddpg2-arpg@nic.in>,
hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>, “ak.dash” <ak.dash@nic.in>,
secy-cic <
secy-cic@nic.in>
To
 
    Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners
,Government
of India.
Appellant-Mahesh
Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P. Singh)
Mohalla-Surekapuram
,Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur
,State-Uttar Pradesh , Country-India
 
                     
      Versus
Respondents-
1-Registrar
(A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public Information Officer , High
court
of judicature at Allahabad , Allahabad .
2-Registrar
General /First Appellate Authority under Right to
Information
Act 2005 ,High court of judicature at Allahabad ,
Allahabad
.
Prayer-To
direct concerned to entertain my appeal in accordance with
the
law. Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public Information Officer
be
directed to provide information as sought by information seeker.
Short
submissions .
1-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant sought
following
information from CPIO High court-
Prayer-Please
made available information in regard to aforesaid letter
no.
18 C.M./two-4-2014-16-J/2011 dated-28-April-2014 as –
1-notings
2-any action taken 3-if no action taken ,cause of sparing
the
wrongdoer. Aforesaid sought information kindly be made available
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
How much ridiculous that rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court
(Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is contrary to spirit of this judgment but
under force because transparency and accountability is main foe of judicial
members working at judicature of High court at Allahabad . Here this question
arises that what is the set up norm in order to get the information concerned
with the compliance of High court order . Here information seeker is only
seeking that after 8 years whether director secondary education has complied
the High court order to submit counter affidavit and not the view point of
judicial member or not trying to get redress of the grievance. Whether this is
not anarchy that director secondary education didn’t comply the order of High
court even after eight years. Here  CPIO don’t want to inform that
Director secondary education took under teeth the direction of High court by
overlooking order of High court. As this will lower the image of court and
every one will know that what is going on in our courts.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
whether it is justified that concerned may procrastinate on the submitted
complaints and justice seeker may wait for indefinite period. Whether
secretariat is not acting like stumbling block in caucus with the accountable
public functionaries of the department.
   5-It is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that whether property assessment is done as done by the
following information commissioners of India. Few one have some extent done
good job but most accountable made the mockery the norm set up to declare the
movable and immovable property. Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of aforesaid
links.
 
                     
 
This is humble request of your applicant to you
Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of
citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up
norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap
benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to
justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb
grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you
Hon’ble Sir.
           
               ‘Yours  sincerely
           
                Yogi M. P. Singh

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

2 comments on CIC fixed the date for hearing as information was not made available by High court of judicature at Allahabad.

  1. How much ridiculous that rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is contrary to spirit of this judgment but under force because transparency and accountability is main foe of judicial members working at judicature of High court at Allahabad . Here this question arises that what is the set up norm in order to get the information concerned with the compliance of High court order . Here information seeker is only seeking that after 8 years whether director secondary education has complied the High court order to submit counter affidavit and not the view point of judicial member or not trying to get redress of the grievance. Whether this is not anarchy that director secondary education didn't comply the order of High court even after eight years. Here CPIO don't want to inform that Director secondary education took under teeth the direction of High court by overlooking order of High court. As this will lower the image of court and every one will know that what is going on in our courts.

  2. Why High court of judicature itself playing the role of stumbling block in providing sought information to information seekers? Whether it is not contempt of legislature of the country. This is state of lawlessness in the country and its root cause lies in the rampant corruption in the judiciary. It is most unfortunate that our judicial members are indulged in deep rooted corruption but they are shielded in the name of independence of judiciary. Here justice is not available to poor and downtrodden section because of huge backlog and rampant corruption.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: