Now police commissioner Lucknow may provide information as D.G.P. office forwarded the matter

Gmail Beerbhadra Singh <myogimpsingh@gmail.com>
To ensure the compliance of order passed by Lucknow bench of High court of Judicature in the matter as police in the state of Uttar Pradesh has been incredible because of its mysterious corrupt dealings.
RTICELLDGPHQUP <rti.dgphq-up@gov.in> Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 4:07 PM
To: myogimpsingh@gmail.com

Cc: pmosb@pmo.nic.in, Presidents Secretariat <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>, urgent-action@ohchr.org, SCI <supremecourt@nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, CHIEF SECRETARY GoUP <csup@up.nic.in>, hgovup <hgovup@up.nic.in>, uphrclko@yahoo.co.in, JAGDISH PRASAD <sec.sic@up.nic.in>, homepolice015@gmail.com

आपके प्रार्थना पत्र में अंकित तथ्यों एवं इस मुख्यालय के सम्बन्धित अनुभाग से प्राप्त आख्या के आधार जनसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम-2005 की धारा 6(3) के अन्तर्गत जनसूचना अधिकारी, कार्यालय पुलिस आयुक्त जनपद लखनऊ को आन्तरित किया जा चुका है। आप कृपया वांछित सूचना सम्बन्धित से प्राप्त कर सकते है।

From: myogimpsingh@gmail.com
To: pmosb@pmo.nic.in, “Presidents Secretariat” <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>, urgent-action@ohchr.org, “SCI” <supremecourt@nic.in>, “cmup” <cmup@up.nic.in>, “CHIEF SECRETARY GoUP” <csup@up.nic.in>, “hgovup” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, uphrclko@yahoo.co.in, “JAGDISH PRASAD” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>, homepolice015@gmail.com, “RTICELLDGPHQUP” <rti.dgphq-up@gov.in>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:45:54 PM
Subject: To ensure the compliance of order passed by Lucknow bench of High court of Judicature in the matter as police in the state of Uttar Pradesh has been incredible because of its mysterious corrupt dealings.

An application on behalf of Dinesh Pratap Singh under Article 32 of the constitution of India to seek compliance of order passed by Lucknow bench of High court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter  as Lucknow police by colluding with land grabbers made the mockery of the law of land through its inconsistent and incredible reports and repeated insensitivity to the information sought under the Right to Information Act 2005.

To

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India/companion judges

Supreme court of India, New Delhi

Petitioner-Yogi M. P. Singh

Mohalla-Surekapuram

Jabalpur Road

District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh PIN code-231001

Versus

1-Home secretary

Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

2-Director General of police

Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

3-Senior Superintendent of police

Lucknow Uttar Pradesh

Prayer-Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to pass the order of enquiry by a team in the matter as order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad was taken under teeth by the Lucknow police under monitoring of Hon’ble court as police in the state not only superseded the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad but also challenging the supremacy of the law of land. Both the D.G.P. office Lucknow and office of home secretary openly crushing the rule of law by violating the provisions of the existing laws of land and acting against the set up norms and traditions.

Sir here we are not bypassing the High court of judicature at Allahabad but it is unfortunate that they are not taking seriously our representations which were made before them through the ministry of law. Sir, Dinesh Pratap Singh already being persecuted through multiple fabricated false cases in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand by the land grabbers by colluding with police.

Registrar general, High court of Judicature at Allahabad may provide the feedback regarding the communication Department of Justice 10 January 2020 at 12:09.

Sir following E-Mail communication was sent by the ministry of law and justice as follows.

Department of Justice 10 January 2020 at 12:09 To: rg allahabad High Court Cc: yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to the following submissions as follows.

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 प्रार्थी दिनेश प्रताप सिंह की ओर से कार्यवाही हेतु अधिकृत है |

श्री मान जी सिर्फ दो विन्दुओं पर सूचना मागी गयी थे व्यथित दिनेश प्रताप सिंह द्वारा

१-वह सूचनाएँ उपलब्ध कराए जो लखनऊ पुलिस को सिविल न्यायालय की शक्तियों से आच्छादित करती है और लखनऊ पुलिस सक्षम सिविल न्यायालय की तरह आर्डर पास कर रही है |

२-माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ बेंच द्वारा अनुराधा सिंह उर्फ़ आराधना सिंह उर्फ़ गुड्डी को सक्षम न्यायालय से सिविल रेमेडी लेने को कहा था फिर लखनऊ पुलिस ने कैसे उस सिविल मामले में क्रिमिनल रेमेडी प्रदान की और निचली अदालत को गुमराह किया और उच्च न्यायालय की अवमानना किया | उन शक्तियों के बारे में सूचना उपलब्ध कराई जाय जो लखनऊ पुलिस को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय और उसके अधीनस्थ न्यायालय से ज्यादा शक्ति संपन्न बना रहे है |

Who will fix accountability? Grievances are redressed by the public functionaries by submitting arbitrary reports inconsistent with the submissions of the grievances and information sought under Right to Information Act 2005 is not provided by them arbitrarily by making a mockery of the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.

उपरोक्त सूचनाएँ न तो उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार का बिधि विभाग ही देना चाहता है और न ही और न ही गृह सचिव कार्यालय ही देना चाहता है | व्यथा निवारण तो ऐसा करते है जैसे जीवन में कभी बुक छूया ही न हो |

PIO may provide the following information pointwise as sought.

1-Provide feedback if in the context of attached reference how Lucknow police have the power of a competent court to provide a civil remedy.

2-If High court decided for civil remedy subsequently the police can provide a criminal remedy in the reference matter by misleading the court. Provide feedback if any in support of police.   

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of the following submissions.

Most respected Superintendent of police, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant aggrieved Dinesh Pratap Singh, wants to draw the kind attention of the revered Sir to the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in the Writ Petition Number-135 H/C Year 2006 as follows-

It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the staircase so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Since it is not a case in the strict sense of illegal detention, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent to produce the detenu in the court and allow her to live free at her home but since she can not take necessary steps for taking the remedy in the competent court, therefore it is simply ordered that the alleged detenue Smt Anuradha Singh shall be allowed to go out of the house and respondent number 4 to 7 shall open the lock of the door and open the door so that Smt Anuradha Singh may come out and take an appropriate remedy. Dated-07/03/2006 Signed by the concerned Honourable Justices of Division bench of Lucknow. It would be better to take perusal by Sir itself.

Respondent-1-State of U.P. through the Secretary of home.

2-S.S.P. Lucknow 3-S.H.O. Ashiana Police station.

Whether competent court means police as defined by the aforementioned respondents?

To open the lock of the door and open the door for seeking appropriate remedy means to open the door for always and hatching a conspiracy against the applicant and his family.

Consequently, a fabricated First Information Report by colluding with the police was lodged in the police station Ashiyana on 11 July 2009 after 3 years 4 months 4 days of Judgement Dated-07/03/2006 -under sections of I.P.C. as case number-269/2009 Indian Penal Code- sections 448,406,420,467,468,471,394 of India Penal Code.

All these documents were submitted by the police before the Lucknow bench of High court of judicature at Allahabad and the court took the cognizance and passed the order per the law but later on police found the records forged and aforementioned fabricated charges not only framed on the applicant but his wife and daughter as well. Thus terrorised the entire family so they fled by putting locks in the rooms later locks were broken and the entire house was grabbed even valuables were looted. Which means Lucknow police had submitted forged records before the High court along with the affidavit.

Thus a competent and appropriate court delivered the Judgement in the matter in compliance of the High court order Dated-07/03/2006.

4-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Department of Justice 10 January 2020 at 12:09 To: rg allahabad High Court Cc: yogimpsingh@gmail.com

 

Sir/Madam,

Please see the attachments on the above subject for action as appropriate, under intimation to the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

                     Hemendra Singh

             Section Officer (Justice-I) 

                  Department of Justice

https://pgportal.gov.in

Why is registrar general High court of Judicature is adopting a lackadaisical approach in taking appropriate action in the matter as the matter is concerned with the blatant abuse of the process of the court by the Lucknow police and Lucknow police itself not only made the mockery of the law of land but also committed contempt of court?

5-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that neither D.G.P. office nor Home secretary office is providing any information under the Right to Information Act 2005 and poor economy of Dinesh Pratap Singh does not allow to hire expensive advocates to seek justice therefore as priority to delivery of justice and to ensure its reach to needy, Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to order an investigation by premier investigating agency central bureau of investigation.

श्री मान जी माननीय राष्ट्रपति महोदय के कार्यालय द्वारा अग्रसारित प्रार्थी का पत्र मुख्य मंत्री उत्तर प्रदेश कार्यालय द्वारा पुलिस महानिदेशक लखनऊ को पृष्ठांकित किया गया और सूचनार्थ प्रार्थी को भी प्रतिलिपि प्रेषित की गयी सत्य है | पत्र संलग्न है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी को कृत कार्यवाही से अवगत कराया जाना था |

उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस की अराजकता से कौन नही परिचित है और प्रार्थी जो खुद भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी के रूप में सक्रिय है तो वह पूर्व में ही परिचित है पुलिस की कार्यशैली से | मुख्य मंत्री कार्यालय के कहने से पुलिस महानिदेशक लखनऊ कार्यालय प्रार्थी को सूचना उपलब्ध कराएगा असंभव |

इसलिए प्रार्थी द्वारा जन सूचना अधिकार २००५ का सहारा लिया गया | किंतु प्रार्थी इस बात से भी भली भाति परिचित है की किस तरह से प्रदेश का गृह सचिव कार्यालय जनसूचना अधिकार २००५ को धूल चटा चुका है | कुछ साथी हमारे प्रत्यावेदन को समझना चाहते है इसलिए आंग्ल भाषा के स्थान पर मात्रि भाषा पर भी जोर दे रहा हूँ |

The matter is concerned with the president secretariat reference number-P2-A/0908190127/2019 dated-09/08/2019 which was forwarded by Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister Office, Government of Uttar Pradesh through a communication dated-13/12/2019 addressed to D.G.P. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh attached as the first page to document. Please provide the information as sought,

1-Notings and minutes of proceedings.

2-Cause of delay in providing action taken report.

3-Name and designation of the staffs processing the matter.

4-If more time will be taken, then provide duration.

श्री मान जी शिकायत का निस्तारण तो उसी समय हो जाता है जब मुख्य मंत्री कार्यालय जब मुख्य मंत्री कार्यालय राष्ट्रपति कार्यालय को पत्र भेज देता है क्योंकि उसके पश्चात तो कोई कार्यवाही होती नही अन्यथा सूचना नही उपलब्ध नही करा देते |

 6-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that on the submitted representations of the aggrieved Dinesh Pratap Singh, they are submitting arbitrary inconsistent reports and when applicant seeks information under Right to Information Act 2005, then they do not touch these communiques. Sir there is no rule of law in the state.
 Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 श्री मान गृह सचिव महोदय प्रतिवादी संख्या -१ है इसलिए  माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करना उनकी जिम्मेदारी सर्वोपरि थी | किन्तु जिस तरह से लखनऊ आशियाना थाने का थानाध्यक्ष कल्याण सिंह सागर ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को दरकिनार करके मानवता को शर्मशार करने वाली घटना को अंजाम दिया है और खुद को सक्षम न्यायालय बना  कर न्याय किया है उससे न्यायालय, शासन और पुलिस सभी को शर्मसार होना चाहिए और स्थिति स्पष्ट करना चाहिए किन्तु आप की चुप्पी महोदय खुद रहस्यमयी है | इससे बड़ा भ्रष्टाचार का उदाहरण कहा मिलेगा की माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के स्पष्ट आदेश के बावजूद प्रदेश सचिवालय के नाक के नीचे लखनऊ पुलिस मकान कब्जा करवा दी जो की श्री मान जी की ओर से उच्च न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत हलफनामा जो की उपनिरीक्षक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया था उसको झूठा साबित कर दिए अर्थात आप द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय को गुमराह किया गया | 

जनसूचना अधिकार २००५ के तहत मागी गयी सूचनाओं को न दे कर सिर्फ यही सिद्ध किया जा रहा है की आज भी वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधिकारी मामले पर पर्दा दाल रहे है और भ्रष्टाचार को छुपा रहे है जो किसी ढंग से उचित नही है | कृपया मामले की गंभीरता को समझते हुए नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करे और प्रार्थी को सूचना उपलब्ध कराये जो की लोकहित में होगा |

7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that through R.T.I. Application dated- 06/10/2019 received in the office of public authority i.e. office of home secretary on 10/10/2019, the following information was sought.

CPIO may be directed to provide the following information point wise as sought.

 Tantrik K. P. Singh non compliance of High cour…

 

Most respected Superintendent of police, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant aggrieved Dinesh Pratap Singh, wants to draw the kind attention of the revered Sir to the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 as follows It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to 7 shall open the lock of the staircase so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Since it is not a case in the strict sense of illegal detention, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent to produce the detenue in the court and allow her to live free at her home but since she can not take necessary steps for taking the remedy in the competent court, therefore it is simply ordered that the alleged detenue Smt Anuradha Singh shall be allowed to go out of the house and respondent number 4 to 7 shall open the lock of the door and open the door so that Smt Anuradha Singh may come out and take appropriate remedy. Dated07032006 Signed by the concerned Honourable Justices of Division bench of Lucknow.

 

1-Please provide the G.O./Circular/Legislation which empowers the Lucknow police as the competent court having the power to grant the civil remedies or if any constitutional functionary delegated any such power as aforementioned must be revealed to the information seeker in detail.

 

2-Please, provide access to information regarding the reasoned decision taken by the S.S.P. Lucknow in the grievances aforementioned and which detail is available as page 1 and page 2 of the annexure. Right to reason is an indispensable part of the sound administrative system.

 

Applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the respondent number First who is Secretary of home department, civil secretariat, Government of Uttar Pradesh and respondent number second who is senior superintendent of police Lucknow as well as the station house officer police station Ashiyana who is the respondent number 3 in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 filed in the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad filed by Anuradha Singh also named Guddi also named Aradhana Singh through her mother Beena Singh wife of Brijraj Singh also Beena Singh wife of Netrpal Singh. Whether in the same matter, to get remedy from various redressal bodies and get public aid by changing the name is not illegal? This lady took the land of LDA by bearing the name of Guddi daughter of Brijraj Singh and in order to seek remedy from High court of Judicature at Allahabad, she took the new name Anuradha Singh and now she has been Aradhna Singh whether it is not a mockery of the law of land? Sir, please take a glance of the affidavit submitted by the sub-inspector Satyesh Prakash Dwivedi in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. This affidavit is on behalf of the respondent number-1, 2 and 3 so it is the responsibility of concerned to maintain the sanctity of the affidavit. Sir order of the High court of judicature was for respondent number 1.2 and 3. Sir how can it be justified that Aradhna changed name of Guddi and Anuradha could manage the support of respondent number 1, 2 and 3 to get illegal possession of the land and house of the applicant by robbing the household articles of the applicant and fabricating the false charges not only on the applicant but also on his wife and daughter? Whether this step of the aforementioned respondents had not undermined the authority of the High court of judicature and against the spirit of the affidavit submitted by them through the aforementioned sub-inspector as the spirit of the affidavit was crushed by them? Whether the High court of judicature had ordered to slap false and fabricated charges on the applicant and his wife and daughter as a conspiracy to provide illegal possession to Anuradha Singh and Aradhana Singh by colluding with police may loot the valuables of the applicant by breaking the Locks of rooms? Whether it was the motive of the High court in passing the order that police may play the role of a competent court and competent administrative body as ordered in the writ of multi named personality Anuradha Singh to seek a civil remedy before the competent court? Whether the civil remedy is provided by the police in this largest democracy in the world and the police is the competent court?

 3-Please provide the detail of the privileges granted to Lucknow police specially Ashiana police station which not only overlooked the direction of the Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad but also persecuted not only the applicant but also slapped serious charges on the wife and daughter of the information seeker.

 

4-Please, provide access to information which caused the police to submit forged documents before the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad on behalf of respondent number -1,2 and 3 as later all those documents were declare forged when police acted to provide civil remedy as competent court in order to comply the order passed by High court.

 

5-Please provide the detail of name and designation of the staffs of the Lucknow police who remained instrumental in declaring the impugned land and house of the applicant as the property of Aradhana Singh and robbing the household valuables by breaking the locks of rooms when family fled from the terror of police, third name of the multi named Lady.

खुदा भी आसमाँ से जब जमी पे देखता होगा |

इस मेरे प्यारे देश को क्या हुआ सोचता होगा||

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 arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray for you

, Hon’ble Sir.

Date-13/09/2020           Yours sincerely

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

5 comments on Now police commissioner Lucknow may provide information as D.G.P. office forwarded the matter

  1. PIO may provide the following information pointwise as sought.

    1-Provide feedback if in the context of attached reference how Lucknow police have the power of a competent court to provide a civil remedy.

    2-If High court decided for civil remedy subsequently the police can provide a criminal remedy in the reference matter by misleading the court. Provide feedback if any in support of police.
    Undoubtedly it is mockery of the law of land which implies that we are being ruled by complete anarchy.

  2. Here it is quite obvious that order passed by the Lucknow bench of the high court of judicature at Allahabad was turned over by the sub inspector of Ashiyana police station which is the mockery of the law of land and this matter is in the cognizance of the senior accountable officers in the state of Uttar Pradesh but no one wants to take action in the matter when this is mockery of the the provisions of the Constitution of India and against the dignity of the high court of judicature at Allahabad.

  3. Whether it was the motive of the High court in passing the order that police may play the role of a competent court and competent administrative body as ordered in the writ of multi named personality Anuradha Singh to seek a civil remedy before the competent court? Whether the civil remedy is provided by the police in this largest democracy in the world and the police is the competent court?

  4. Please provide the detail of the privileges granted to Lucknow police specially Ashiana police station which not only overlooked the direction of the Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad but also persecuted not only the applicant but also slapped serious charges on the wife and daughter of the information seeker.
    Undoubtedly police played the role of robbers and it usually plays such roles time and again. For such acts few sub inspectors were indicted under Cr.P. C. after the interference of senior rank officers.

  5. Whether in the same matter, to get remedy from various redressal bodies and get public aid by changing the name is not illegal? This lady took the land of LDA by bearing the name of Guddi daughter of Brijraj Singh and in order to seek remedy from High court of Judicature at Allahabad, she took the new name Anuradha Singh and now she has been Aradhna Singh whether it is not a mockery of the law of land?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: