Delay of 1 year3 months and 25 days in denying the sought information by CPIO High court but no malafide

 Hon’ble Sir, following order was passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India but it is unfortunate that CPIO, High court of Judicature at Allahabad still not complied the order. 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI­110 066 TEL: 011­26717355  Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS
Appellant: Shri Yogi M.P. Singh,           Mohalla­Surekapuram,     Jabalpur Road,         Distt. Mirzapur, U.P.   Respondent:                    Central Public Information Officer, Allahabad High Court,           Allahabad.                     Date of Hearing:      26.10.2015      
Date of Decision:   4.11.2015
                                 O R D E R
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an   RTI application dated 18.3.2014 seeking information regarding a copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad.   The PIO responded on 27.3.2014.     The appellant filed the first appeal dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority.  The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed the second appeal on  24.9.2014 with the Commission.
Hearing:
2.The appellant participated in the hearing through audio.   The respondent did not participate in the hearing. 
3.The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI  application.  The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed a counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not.  The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided 
Decision:
4.The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the  RTI application.  The appeal is disposed of.  Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
                           (Vijai Sharma)                        Chief Information Commissioner   
Authenticated true copy   
                                 (Dhirendra Kumar)             Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar  
The copy of the aforementioned decision is annexed with this representation as page 3 and 4.
 appellant through R.T.I. communiqué dated-27-11-2016 sought following point wise information.
Hon’ble Sir, AT 10.00 A.M. date:
                    COURT NO. 1
                    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SINHA
 Fresh and listed: (i) Service writs relating to educational institutions from 1
 -January 2016; (ii) Listed service writs(except service writs relating employees
– of High Court and District Judiciary) from 1 January 2001 to 31 December, 2010
            for orders, admission and hearing including bunch cases.
                                      For Admission
                             Please provide information point wise as sought by your applicant in regard to following points.
1-Please made available number of cases listed by Registry of High court Allahabad for hearing on 25/11/2016 in Court No. 1 in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
2-Please made available number of cases heard by Hon’ble aforesaid court out of aforementioned sought listed cases.
3-Please made available the name and designation of public servant under whose supervision aforementioned sought listed cases were listed for hearing on 25/11/2016 in Court No. 1 in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
4-Please made available the basic criteria to list a case before Hon’ble court by the registry of High court of judicature at Allahabad.
5-Please made available the fate of non heard cases by the court in regard to their processing for next listing by the registry of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Status : Search by Case Number

Case Status – WRIT – A ( WRIA ) – [ 20121/2006 ]
Filing No.
WRIA/20121/2006
Filing Date : 10-04-2006
CNR
UPHC011291832006
Date of Registration : 10-04-2006

Case Status
First Hearing Date
12th April 2006
Next Hearing Date
Case is not on list
Stage of Case
For Admission
Coram
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
WRITS Civil
Causelist Type
State
UTTARPRADESH
District
MIRZAPUR

Petitioner/Respondent and their Advocate(s)
Petitioner
Respondent
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Advocate – P.C. CHAUHAN, P.S.CHAUHAN , S.P. SINGH
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Advocate – C.S.C.,

Category Details
Category
WRIT PETITIONS RELATING TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (NON TEACHING STAFF) (SINGLE BENCH) ( 15900 )
Sub Category
Salary and allowances ( 5 )

IA Details
Application(s) Number
Party
Date of Filing
Next / Disposal Date
IA Status
IA/2/2006 ( 76919/2006 ) Classification : Stay Application Bench : 1007
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
10-04-2006
Pending
IA/3/2006 ( 222357/2006 ) Classification : Listing Application Bench : 5127
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
17-10-2006
19-10-2006
Disposed
IA/1/2006 ( 265508/2007 ) Classification : Listing Application Bench : 1007
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
06-11-2007
Pending

Last Listing Detail
Cause List Type
Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice
Last Listing Date
Stage of Listing
Last Short Order
Additional/Unlisted List
AJAY BHANOT ( Bench: 5128 )
24-09-2018
For Admission
L.O./P.O./S.O.

Disclaimer: This is not an authentic/certified copy of the information regarding status of a case. Authentic/certified information may be obtained under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of Allahabad High Court Rules. Mistake, if any, may be brought to the notice of OSD(Judicial)(Computer).

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Mockery of R.T.I. Act 2005 by CPIO/Registrar and FAA/Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 20 October 2018 at 19:24

To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>
Cc: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, registrar-cic@nic.in

When CIC is well apprised with the fact that there is an undue delay of I Year 3 months 25 days, then how it reached on the conclusions that there is no malafide intention on the part of CPIO and Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad.
There is proved fact that that office of the registrar general received the First Appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 and he deliberately not entertained the appeal which shows his insolence to provisions of the transparency act but it did not occupy the place in the order of CIC.
Whether supremacy of the law becomes dwarfs before the influential responsible public functionaries if yes ipso facto obvious then where is the rule of law? Whether in the aforementioned matter law was not discriminating? I have spent Rs.250 plus Rs.86 as commission in order to get demand draft why I will be satisfied with the denial of sought information? It has been a trend in the judiciary especially High court of Judicature at Allahabad not to provide sought information as they dislike transparency and accountability in its function otherwise anarchy may end from the system. I have spent more than Rs.1800 in the High court and its subordinate courts but they never provided any information. Whether such an outlook is not terrific?
 Dicey’s theory has three pillars based on the concept that “a government should be based on principles of law and not of men”, these are:

Supremacy of Law: 

This has always been the basic understanding of rule of law that propounds that the law rules over all people including the persons administering the law. The lawmakers need to give reasons that can be justified under the law while exercising their powers to make and administer the law.

Equality before the Law: 

While the principle of supremacy of law sets in place cheques and balances over the government on making and administering the law, the principle of equality before the law seeks to ensure that the law is administered and enforced in a just manner. It is not enough to have a fair law but the law must be applied in a just manner as well. The law cannot discriminate between people in matters of sex, religion, race etc. This concept of the rule of law has been codified in the Indian Constitution under Article 14 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the preamble and Article 7.

Predominance of legal spirit: 

In including this as a requirement for the rule of law, Dicey’s belief was that it was insufficient to simply include the above two principles in the constitution of the country or in its other laws for the state to be one in which the principles of rule of law are being followed. There must be an enforcing authority and Dicey believed that this authority could be found in the courts. The courts are the enforcers of the rule of law and they must be both impartial and free from all external influences. Thus the freedom of the judicial becomes an important pillar to the rule of law.
In modern parlance Rule of Law has come to be understood as a system which has safeguards against official arbitrariness, prevents anarchy and allows people to plan the legal consequences of their actions.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:18, Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> wrote:
An application under article 32 of the constitution of India.
To
                   Hon’ble chief justice of India/Companion Judges
                                Supreme court, New Delhi, India
Subject-Our fundamental/Human Rights are no more safe if the CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad and its first appellate authority Registrar General itself are violators of our rights. Here protectors are predators and there is no expectation of justice from any quarter.
With due respect and regard to Hon’ble Sir, the appellant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
An enquiry under article 51 A of the constitution of India as a step towards the
betterment of the Society. 
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that  51A. Fundamental duties 
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the 
Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag 
and the National Anthem;(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism 
and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective 
activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour 
and achievement
 .
2 -It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Mockery of Right to Information Act 2005 by the public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Registrar General didn’t entertain the first appeal because he didn’t receive the first appeal as told by the assistant central public information officer Pankaj Shrivastava to the central information commission but there is ample evidence that office of  
                                Registrar general/ First appellate authority
                                   High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
                                   Allahabad Pin Code:- 211017 Uttar Pradesh

received the despatch 30/01/2017 on 01/02/2017 ipso fact obvious from this online tracking-Delivered On
Allahabad High Court S.O 01/02/2017
Event Details For EU738301755IN Current Status: Item delivered at Allahabad High Court S.O
Date Time Office Event
01/02/2017 12:49:00 Allahabad High Court S.O Item delivered

 3-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that   CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 through his communication dated 22-March-2018 and made available to the applicant on 24-March-2018 after the hearing dated-23-March-2018 took place in the central information commission where assistant CPIO claimed to provide the sought information ipso facto obvious from his own communication Judgment of the central information commission. At the place of 30 days, CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad took 1 year 3 months 25 days in denying a sought information. Moreover, First Appellate Authority/ Registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad didn’t deem it fit to consider the appeal submitted under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. The hearing took place before CIC on 23-March-2018 and aforementioned lacunae on the part of public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad was brought up by the applicant before chief information commissioner of India but the outcome remained null ipso facto obvious from the attached scanned copy of the judgment of chief information commissioner of India.

4-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
To
                                Registrar general/ First appellate authority
                                   High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
                                   Allahabad Pin Code:- 211017 Uttar Pradesh
Subject- Regarding non-compliance of subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005.
When the applicant fully confirmed that communication received in the office of Registrar general and he didn’t take any action on the appeal then filed the second appeal quite obvious if Hon’ble Sir may visit on the following link-
With this representation also the respective documentary evidence are attached proving the receive of appeal by the office of the registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad.
5-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that sought information denied but in compilation and collation of information CPIOtook 1 year 3 months and 25 days in denying the sought information. Whether it is a reflection of a healthy democracy?
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 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.                                  Yours sincerely

Date-12-10-2018              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

Following information can not be provided as these informations are concerned with the judicial function.
2-Please made available number of cases heard by Hon’ble aforesaid court out of aforementioned sought listed cases.

3-Please made available the name and designation of public servant under whose supervision aforementioned sought listed cases were listed for hearing on 25/11/2016 in Court No. 1 in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

4-Please made available the basic criteria to list a case before Hon’ble court by the registry of High court of judicature at Allahabad.

5-Please made available the fate of non heard cases by the court in regard to their processing for next listing by the registry of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 through his communication dated 22-March-2018 and made available to the applicant on 24-March-2018 after the hearing dated-23-March-2018 took place in the central information commission where assistant CPIO claimed to provide the sought information ipso facto obvious from his own communication Judgment of the central information commission. At the place of 30 days, CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad took 1 year 3 months 25 days in denying a sought information. Moreover, First Appellate Authority/ Registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad didn’t deem it fit to consider the appeal submitted under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. The hearing took place before CIC on 23-March-2018 and aforementioned lacunae on the part of public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad was brought up by the applicant before chief information commissioner of India but the outcome remained null ipso facto