Non compliance of direction of Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India by High court at Allahabad.

Whether High court of judicature really interested to get compliance of
its order if not why?
Why C.P.I.O. High court of judicature at Allahabad didn’t furnish
access to information to information seeker which is contempt of direction of
chief information commissioner of India?
Order passed by High court of judicature at Allahabad was not complied
by the Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad which is lowering the
dignity of court but Hon’ble court instead of taking action against erring
bureaucrat for disobeying the court order prefers to withhold sought
information and even by disobeying the direction of chief information
commissioner of India. Whether this is signal of healthy democracy where rule
of law is followed.
2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Krantl Bhavan,
Bblkaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI-i 10066
TEL: 011-26717355
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS
Appellant: /Shri Yogi M.P. Singh,
Mirzapur, U.P.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
High Court,
Date of
Hearln: 26.10.2015
Date of Decision: 4.11.2015
RTI application:
1. The
appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.3.2014 seeking information
regarding copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education
Arth- I Allahabad. The PlO responded on
The appellant filed first appeal dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate
authority. The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on
24.9.20 14 with the Commission.
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 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

4. The
respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order,
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
true copy

Secretary and Deputy Registrar 

2 comments on Non compliance of direction of Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India by High court at Allahabad.

  1. Hon'ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005 . Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words "Sadharan Vetanman". List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad 2-Assistant deputy director secondary education working in the of director of secondary education .Allahabad. 3-D.D.R. Mirzapur.4-DIOS Mirzapur. 5-Committee of management R.I.C. Naugaon ,Mirzapur. Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4. But main accused ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court still did not abide by the order of High Court. Hon'ble Sir- Even a common man can understand that order passed in the writ no.20121 of year 2006 is against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by director education Arth Allahabad. Here this question arises that when counter affidavit was not submitted by director ,then how court will ascertain the role of director if he is found guilty of noncomplying the order whether that will require one more writ so that his accountability may be decided. Why director secondary education Arth Allahabad did not comply the direction of High court at Allahabad? DIOS Mirzapur can submit its own submissions not on behalf of respondent 2 and 3. Respondent 2 and 3 still did not submit any counter submissions. Here petioner is aggrieved with the director as he superseded the direction of High court.

  2. Whether it is justified that central public information officer High court of judicature at Allahabad may not comply the order of chief information Commissioner of India passed by him on 4 -November-2015 . According to order Central public information officer high court of judicature had to provide sought information within one month but time expired and aforesaid staff didn't furnish the access to information to information seeker .Whether such dealing for public authority like high court of judicature suit. What signal is being sent in public domain.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: