Director secondary education superseded order of court and most surprising not submitted affidavit in 12 years

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD DAILY CAUSE LIST 10/08/2018 AT 10:00 AM (Court No.28 ) HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY BHANOT – (5128 – Single Bench ) Service writs of all categories (except provided elsewhere) from the year 2006 to 2009; for orders, admission and hearing including bunch cases. AND Fresh and Listed : i. First appeals; ii. Testamentary matters; iii. F.A.F.O.’s including Motor Accident Claim upto the year 2010; for orders, admission and hearing including bunch cases.
                                                For Admission
          WRIT – A
    1. LAFC 20121/2006 RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS P.S.CHAUHAN S.P. SINGH P.C. CHAUHAN C.S.C.
    Senior Citizen
    2. LAFP 16150/2007 SWAMI CHARAN MISHRA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS HANUMAN UPADHYA C.K. PANDEY A.N.TIWARI C.K.PAREKH C.S.C.
    Transfer Cases
    3. PO 7108/2006 PURUSOTTAM SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS DIGVIJAI NATH PANDEY SHIV NATH SINGH YADAV PT. DHARM NARAIN DUBEY M.P. GUPTA C.S.C.
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
    Case Status : Search by Case Number
    Case Status – WRIT – A ( WRIA ) – [ 20121/2006 ]
    CNR
    UPHC011291832006
    Filing Date : 10-04-2006
    Filing No.
    WRIA/20121/2006
    Date of Registration : 10-04-2006
    Case Status
    First Hearing Date
    12th April 2006
    Next Hearing Date
    10th August 2018 – Case is Listed in Court No. 28 ( Bench Id 5128 ) at Sr.No. 1
    Stage of Case
    For Admission
    Coram ( Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice )
    AJAY BHANOT ( 5128 )
    Bench Type
    Single Bench
    Judicial Branch
    WRITS Civil
    Causelist Type
    Daily Cause List
    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
    Daily Cause List
    AJAY BHANOT ( Bench: 5128 )
    10-08-2018
    For Admission
    List as First Case
    Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    Lawlessness, anarchy and arbitrariness originates from uncontrolled powers given to public servants.There must be proper mechanism to control it.
    2 messages
    Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 March 2018 at 17:11
    To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, “sec. sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>

    Subject-Whether violations of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 can be allowed by chief information commissioner of India only because of the matter was concerned with the public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad and overlooked the prayer of information seeker in this regard?
    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 please take a glance at the first and second page of attachment with this representation. CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 on 22-March-2018 ipso facto obvious from his own communication. 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 it seems that result will be null.
    Booked At
    Booked On
    Destination Pincode
    Tariff
    Article Type
    Delivered At
    Delivered On
    MIRZAPUR H.O
    24/03/2018
    Event Details For : EU304043089IN Current Status : Item delivered [To: .. ]
    Date
    Time
    Office
    Event
    24/03/2018
    16:55:00
    MIRZAPUR H.O
    Item delivered [To: .. ]
    24/03/2018
    08:29:09
    MIRZAPUR H.O
    Item Received
    23/03/2018
    20:17:20
    ICH MIRZAPUR
    Item Received
    23/03/2018
    20:17:20
    ICH MIRZAPUR
    Bag Opened
    23/03/2018
    20:08:39
    ICH MIRZAPUR
    Bag Received
    23/03/2018
    03:43:56
    NSH ALLAHABAD
    Bag Despatched to ICH MIRZAPUR
    23/03/2018
    01:13:10
    NSH ALLAHABAD
    Item Bagged for ICH MIRZAPUR
    22/03/2018
    18:50:54
    NSH ALLAHABAD
    Item Received
    2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
    SEARCH RESULTS
    RESULTS FOR FILE NUMBER: CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
    PARTICULARS
    DESCRIPTION
    Name
    YOGI M P SINGH
    Address
    MOHALLA SUREKAPURAM, JABALPUR ROAD, DISTT. MIRZAPUR.
    File No.
    CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
    File Admitted date
    05-05-2017
    DAK Status
    Pertaining CIC/IC
    Radha Krishna Mathur
    Public Authority
    High Court of Other States
    CPIO Address
    The CPIO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
    Speed Post number
    Hearing notice issued — Hearing is scheduled and date and venue conveyed.
    SEARCH RESULTS
    RESULTS FOR FILE NUMBER: CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
    PARTICULARS
    DESCRIPTION
    Name
    M P SINGH
    Address
    MOHALLA SUREKAPURAM, JABALPUR ROAD, DISTRICT MIRZAPUR 231001.
    File No.
    CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
    File Admitted date
    04-07-2017
    DAK Status
    Pertaining CIC/IC
    Radha Krishna Mathur
    Public Authority
    High Court of Other States
    CPIO Address
    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
    Speed Post number
    Hearing notice issued — Hearing is scheduled and date and venue conveyed.
    Hearing Schedule
    Sl.No.
    File No.
    Name Of Appellant/Complainant
    IC Name
    Public Authority
    Date of Hearing
    Time of Hearing
    Bench Details
    Action
    1
    CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
    M P SINGH
    Radha Krishna Mathur
    High Court of Other States
    23/03/2018
    12:00 PM
    Single Bench
    Hearing Schedule
    Sl.No.
    File No.
    Name Of Appellant/Complainant
    IC Name
    Public Authority
    Date of Hearing
    Time of Hearing
    Bench Details
    Action
    1
    CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
    YOGI M P SINGH
    Radha Krishna Mathur
    High Court of Other States
    23/03/2018
    12:00 PM
    Single Bench
    3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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.
    4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle around 350 BC. Plato wrote: “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state”. Likewise, Aristotle also endorsed the concept of Rule of law by writing that “law should govern and those in power should be servants of the laws.”
    Where is the rule of law in this country? Whether Judges are not public servants and they are not accountable to be governed? On one side of the screen, we term them as public servants but on another side of the screen, they are more tyrant than a monarch.
    5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether the motive of independence of the judiciary is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of a member or increase tyranny and arbitrariness in the system. Whether the power of contempt is to establish the rule of law or suppress the voice seeking transparency and accountability as the applicant was deprived of sought information in the name of contempt of court? Where is the supremacy of law if really there is supremacy of law, then what is the cause of repeated violations of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005?  Dicey asserted that wherever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness.
                                        This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the 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 Mobile number-7379105911
    Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.


    Mockery of Right to Information Act and tyranny in Highcourt.pdf
    1827K
    Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 April 2018 at 13:30
    To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, “sec. sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>

    Subject- CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 on 22-March-2018 ipso facto obvious from his own communication. 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.

    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 undue, deliberate, willful delay i.e. 1 year 03 months and 25 days in denying sought information on the part of CPIO High court of Judicature can be condoned by the chief information commissioner of India. Most surprising when the applicant sought evidence in regard to claim of CPIO that he had provided the sought information during the hearing, then Chief Information Commissioner of India told me that his information is annexed to the paper book. Whether rule of law means, in the largest democracy like India, constitutional functionaries will be above the law?
    2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that during the hearing the applicant sought penal action against both CPIO and registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad as duo violated the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 but the plea of the applicant overlooked by the chief information commissioner of India ipso facto obvious from the attached scanned copy of judgment of chief information commissioner of India. Whether under such circumstances, to seek information from the High court of Judicature at Allahabad is feasible? If the audio or video copy of the proceedings may be available, then please take a glance at proceedings.
    3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that the applicant has paid Rs.250  not only Rs.50 as written in the order passed by the chief information commissioner of India and CPIO had asked me to pay the amount so that sought information could be made available but once the fee /demand draft made available neither CPIO nor registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad communicated and denial was made available by the CPIO after hearing took place before the chief information commissioner of India i.e. after 23-March-2018. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance at the attached scanned copy of the documents.

                                               This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the 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 Mobile number-7379105911
    Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

     


    [Quoted text hidden]


    Undue deliberate delay by CPIO Highcourt condoned by CIC.pdf
    950K
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

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.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Hon'ble Sir that 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