Mockery of R.T.I. Act by Registrar and Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad

 

 

आवेदन
का विवरण
शिकायत
संख्या
15199170016957
आवेदक कर्ता का
नाम:
महेश प्रताप सिंह योगी
आवेदक कर्ता का
मोबाइल न०:
7379105911,0
विषय:
प्रार्थी
के पत्र पर कार्यवाही कराये जाने के संबंध में
नियत तिथि:
22 – Aug – 2019
शिकायत की स्थिति:
लम्बित
रिमाइंडर :
प्राप्त अनुस्मारक
क्र..
अनुस्मारक
प्राप्त दिनांक
1
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 30012017 on 01022017
ipso fact obvious from this online tracking-Delivered On Allahabad High
Court SO 01022017 Event Details For EU738301755IN Current Status Item
delivered at Allahabad High Court SO Date Time Office Event 01022017 124900
Allahabad High Court SO Item deliveredCPIO made available the denial of
sought information dated 27112016 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 Judgement 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 judgement of chief information
commissioner of India
02 Sep 2019
फीडबैक :
फीडबैक की स्थिति:
आवेदन
का संलग्नक
अग्रसारित विवरण
क्र..
सन्दर्भ
का प्रकार
आदेश
देने वाले अधिकारी
आदेश
दिनांक
अधिकारी
को प्रेषित
आदेश
आख्या
दिनांक
आख्या
स्थिति
आख्या
रिपोर्ट
1
अंतरित
अजय कुमार सिंह(विशेष कार्याधिकारी मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय )
24 – Mar – 2017
अपर मुख्य सचिव/प्रमुख सचिव/सचिव न्याय
पृष्ठांकित
कार्यालय
स्तर पर लंबित

 

आवेदन
का विवरण
शिकायत
संख्या
15199170016957
आवेदक कर्ता का
नाम:
महेश
प्रताप सिंह योगी
आवेदक कर्ता का
मोबाइल न०:
7379105911,0
विषय:
प्रार्थी
के पत्र पर कार्यवाही कराये जाने के संबंध में
नियत तिथि:
22 – Aug – 2019
शिकायत की स्थिति:
लम्बित
रिमाइंडर :
फीडबैक :
फीडबैक की स्थिति:
आवेदन
का संलग्नक
अग्रसारित विवरण
क्र..
सन्दर्भ
का प्रकार
आदेश
देने वाले अधिकारी
आदेश
दिनांक
अधिकारी
को प्रेषित
आदेश
आख्या
दिनांक
आख्या
स्थिति
आख्या
रिपोर्ट
1
अंतरित
अजय कुमार सिंह(विशेष कार्याधिकारी मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय )
24 – Mar – 2017
अपर मुख्य सचिव/प्रमुख सचिव/सचिव न्याय
पृष्ठांकित
कार्यालय
स्तर पर लंबित
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
CPIO High court OF judicature at Allahabad didn’t provide sought information and Registrar general didn’t entertain the first appeal. This is mockery of Right to Information Act 2005.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 12 March 2017 at 13:34
To: secy-cic@nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, “csup@up.nic.in” <csup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, “sec. sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>, registrar-cic@nic.in, ka.talwar@gov.in, ram.p56@gov.in
An appeal under subsection 3  of section of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
To
                                                          Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India
                                                           
                                             The Central Information Commission.
                                                                Second Floor. ‘B Wing,
                                                                August Kranti Bhawan,
                                                                     Bhikaji Cama Place,
                                                                      New Delhi  110066
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-Information sought by your appellant through R.T.I. communiqué dated-27-11-2016 was not made available by  CPIO/ Registrar (Accounts) High Court OF judicature at Allahabad Mob. Number-8004904900.
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 your 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.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that few objections were raised by CPIO/ Registrar (Accounts) High Court OF judicature at Allahabad through its communication dated 20/12/2016 regarding the payment of R.T.I. Fee. Please take a glance of PDF attachment WITH this appeal.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant through communication dated 30/12/2016 removed those objections which were raised by CPIO/ Registrar (Accounts) High Court OF judicature at Allahabad through its communication dated 20/12/2016 regarding the payment of R.T.I. Fee. Please take a glance of PDF attachment WITH this appeal.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant filed first appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 through communication dated 31/01/2017 as communication dated 30/12/2016 in order to remove the objections raised by CPIO High court of judicature at Allahabad was received by his office on 02/01/2017 ipso facto obvious from the delivered date of speed post track attachment WITH this appeal. During this period CPIO High court of JUDICATURE AT Allahabad neither provided sought information nor communicated the cause of non providing sought information.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that first appeal of your appellant was delivered in the office of Registrar General /First Appellate Authority under Right to Information Act 2005 ,High court of judicature at Allahabad , Allahabad on 01/02/2017 but more than 30 days passed ,it is unfortunate that first appellate authority didn’t considered it appropriate to communicate in regard submitted appeal which is sheer violation of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.
                       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 Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .
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
2 messages
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 12 October 2018 at 15:18
 

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
Bcc: cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup@up.nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in

 

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 Judgement 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 judgement 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 CPIO took 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

 

4 attachments
Dispatch record of Appeal submitted to Registrar General High court.pdf
1055K
Public authority High court of judicature CPIO made mockery of RTI.pdf
1072K
Undue deliberate delay by CPIO Highcourt condoned by CIC.pdf
950K
Mockery of Right to Information Act and tyranny in Highcourt.pdf
1827K
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 mala fide 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.
 

3 comments on Mockery of R.T.I. Act by Registrar and Registrar General High court of Judicature at Allahabad

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Undoubtedly condition is serious action must be taken against registrar judicial and registrar general of the high court of judicature at Allahabad who did not provide information to the information seeker and made the mockery of the provisions of Right to Information act 2005 undertaking under teeth the directions given by the central information commission of India. On one side of screen provision of the Constitution of India states that every citizen is alike before the law and every citizen has equal protection of the law but where is such protection if there is discrimination according to the rank and status of the citizenry.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: