Our judiciary lacks transparency and accountability, tyranny and arbitrariness are rampant to result anarchy

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).
Back

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Why were we deprived from visiting the court proceedings in my own case by the security personnel in the name gate pass ?
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 21 July 2016 at 17:10
To: “presidentofindia@rb.nic.in” <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, “hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>
Petitioner was not allowed to attend the proceedings of his case by the security personnel as they were directed by the chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified to curb petitioner from attending the court proceedings on flimsy ground in the name security of few people. Your applicant and his son both having the Aadhaar card in the name ID but security personnel were adamant  to not allow by adhering to directive to chief justice as their obligatory duty to pursue the directives issued by the office of chief justice  .
21 July 2016
15:30
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 of status of the case ipsofacto obvious that case was listed for hearing before the court on 19-July-2016.

Case Status – Allahabad
Pending
Writ – A / 20121 / 2006 [Mirzapur]
Petitioner: RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Respondent: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Counsel (Pet.): P.C. CHAUHAN
Counsel (Res.): C.S.C.
Category: Service-Writ Petitions Relating To Secondary Education (non Teaching Staff) (single Bench)-Salary And Allowances
Date of Filing: 10/04/2006
Last Listed on: 19/07/2016 in Court No. 7
Next Listing Date: To be listed on 25/11/2016
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 (Computer).
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that gate pass can be only available  either through staffs of court if advocate may seek. Which implies that a petitioner can easily be deprived from attending the case proceedings which is his fundamental right. Most surprising is that same is being done by the chief justice High court of judicature at Allahabad.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that justice seeker is the essential component of the case instituted in any court of law by him and deprive justice seeker from attending the case instituted by him which law of land justify it? Why High court of judicature interested in proceedings by not allowing petitioners or their credible relatives?
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to provide security to the judicial members ,Advocates and litigants itself is the obligatory duty of the state government under the monitoring of central government through His Excellency. It is unfortunate that by taking the recourse of issue of security , protectors of constitutional rights itself violating the constitutional rights of citizenry and making the proceedings of court more cumbersome.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to ensure the ID of an individual in this country is the Aadhaar card more authentic ,more credible and easily accessible to citizenry consequently instead of closing the gate of High court for the people of this country specially weaker section , those measures must be adopted which may not breach the rights of citizenry.
6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Open Court
Common law requires a trial in open court; “open court” means a court to 
which the
public has a right to be admitted. This term may mean either a court that has been formally convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial businessor a court that is freely open to spectators.
·         Civil: All court proceedings, including court hearings on discovery and pre-trial motions are presumed open. To close a proceeding, the court must find that (1) limiting public access serves an overriding interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that interest will be prejudiced without closure; (3) the closure order is narrowly con-structed to serve that interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive way to protect that interest. The order to close a proceeding must state the factual and legal bases on the record. (NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178 (1999) CRC 243.1) The court must give public notice that it intends to hold a hearing before closing a courtroom.
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
                            Rajendra Pratap Singh By his son Yogi M. P. Singh  Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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 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 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.

 
[Quoted text hidden]

2 attachments
img182.jpg
670K
img181.jpg
1320K
2 attachments
7AD7B332B1254BBAA66E8190265AC790.gif
3K
0962C0B7BD8847259583F8A06E94C969.gif
1K

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

Petitioner was not allowed to attend the proceedings of his case by the security personnel as they were directed by the chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified to curb petitioner from attending the court proceedings on flimsy ground in the name security of few people. Your applicant and his son both having the Aadhaar card in the name ID but security personnel were adamant to not allow by adhering to directive to chief justice as their obligatory duty to pursue the directives issued by the office of chief justice

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

There is ample evidence that CPIO and FAA both made the mockery of Right to Information Act 2005 but it is unfortunate that no one will take action against them. Whether it is rule of law?
Undoubtedly our public staffs including political masters and judicial members undermine the democratic values for promoting its own selfish motives and there is no supervisory mechanism to control such activities causing failure of democratic process in this largest democracy in the world.No one wants to curb collapse government machinery in order to safeguard its corrupt interests.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

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