To direct C.P.I.O. Supreme Court of India to made available complete and point-wise information

To direct C.P.I.O. Supreme Court of India to made available complete and point-wise information as sought by your applicant under subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005 through application dated 4.5.2011. Applicant is Yogi M. P. Singh Moh-

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/23/11

to s.mishra
An appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of R.T.I. Act 2005.
To Hon’ble Chief Information
Commissioner/Companion Commissioners, Government of India, New Delhi
Subject- Judgement order passed by first appellate
authority of Supreme Court of india delivered on 18.7.2011 in appeal
No. 222 of 2011 is arbitrary, against the spirit of R.T.I. Act.
2005. Hon’ble Sir. With due
respect Your appellant wants to draw the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir
towards following submissions as follows. 1- It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that First Appellate authority
quoted in its judgement that evidently, the CPIO has furnished the
information to the extent held by CPIO. This implies that there is
some one else who held the information in its capacity and not bound
by provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005. Your appellant wants to draw kind
attention of Hon’ble Sir that sought information can only be denied
under section 8 & 9 of R.T.I. Act 2005. 2- It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that F.A.A. quoted in its order that in the
appeal memorandum, the appellant has challenged the reply of CPIO
essentially on merits touching upon the merits of his letter
petitions. Your appellant wants to draw the kind attention of Hon’ble
Sir when queries made under R.T.I. Act is concerned with the merits
of letter petitions then why your appellant will not touch the merits
of letter petitions. Here this question arises that why CPIO is not
revealing the facts which caused the rejection of your appellant’s
letter petition under transparency law? The matter is absolutely
concerned with the poor and downtrodden section of Society.
3- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that first appellate
authority quoted in its order that the legality and correctness of the
decisions taken by administrative authority in lodging the letter
petitions are not amenable to challenge in an appeal under RTI Act.
Your appellant wants to draw kind attention of Hon’ble Sir that your
appellant only sought information and never tried redressal of
grievance through R.T.I. Act 2005. F.A.A. does not want to disclose
the function of registry so that he upheld the impugned communication
of CPIO dated 3.6.2011. 4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
that your appellant wants to draw kind attention of Hon’ble Sir
towards news item published in leading daily “The Times of India”New
Delhi on 25.12.2003 titled “Court has to give reasons for verdict” by
Rakesh Bhatnagar. Please take the perusal as follows.
In a major judgment, the Supreme Cour of India has held that “failure
to give reasons(by a court)amounts to denial of justice” Earlier the
court had held that not only does delayed justice amount to justice
denied but delayed judgment also amounts to justice being denied.
Faced with numerous cryptic judgments and orders passed by various
highcourts giving no reason for their decision to either reject or
accept the arguments of either of parties involved in the case, the
apex court said “Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system” It is submitted before the
Hon’ble Sir that F.A.A. deprived your appellant from right to reason
as well as disobeyed the order of Hon’ble Court which tantamount to
contempt of court. Hon’ble Sir be pleased to pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law as you Hon’ble Sir deem fit. For this
your appellant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. Yours
Sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh Moh- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road,
Dist- Mirzapur(U.P.)

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/23/11

to s.mishra
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to draw
kind attention of Hon’ble Sir towards the correspondence ie
communication dated 15.4.2011addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India as follows. Subject-Lackadaisical approach of Government of
Uttar Pradesh in dealing with the matters of corruption. Hon’ble
Sir. With due respect I want to draw the kind attention of
Hon’ble Sir towards following submissions as follows.
1- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that principal K.B.P.G.
College Mirzapur (U.P.)in reference to letter of your applicant dated
27.6.2007 “under subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005 seeking
point-wise information” made available response through letter dated
2.7.2007 that social welfare department made available Rs. 1870000. 00
in the financial year 2005-2006 to distribute among the students of
scheduled castes which was distributed in the same order. It was also
accepted by the principal K.B.P.G. College, Mirzapur that certificate
of utilization has been made available to social welfare department.
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of annexure 1.
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that after lengthy
proceedings and long delay, principal K.B.P.G. College, Mirzapur
(U.P.) made available the list of beneficiaries who benefitted due to
scheme in the financial year 2005-2006 through its letter
K.B./542-544/2007-08 dated 17.12.2007. Consequently principal made
available the certified copy of list of beneficiaries of 25 pages as
appendages to the aforesaid letter. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take
a glance of annexure 2 in twenty six pages. 3- It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that if Hon’ble Sir will observe the annexure 2
then you Hon’ble Sir shall calculate only Rs.1566445. 00 has been
disbursed among the students. Here this question arises that where Rs.
303555. 00 had gone? This fund meant for poor students overlooked by
account officer of D.I.O.S. Mirzapur otherwise the question raised by
your applicant must have been raised by account officer of D.I.O.S.
Mirzapur which was his official duty and not done properly on the part
of him. 4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that your applicant apprised the matter to director higher
education Allahabad as advised by Hon’ble state information commission
of Uttar Pradesh. It is unfortunate that no step was taken by director
higher education therefore your applicant sent a letter addressed to
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India to direct appropriate authority which
was forwarded by P.M.O. to Government of Uttar Pradesh for action as
appropriate. Then Government of Uttar Pradesh forwarded the letter to
director higher education Allahabad and director overlooked the
direction of state government. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the
perusal of annexure 3. 5- It is submitted before the
Hon’ble Sir that when your applicant concluded that Government of
Uttar Pradesh again wrote a letter addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister
of India dated 27.12.2009 to direct appropriate agency for enquiry in
accordance with law. This letter was again forwarded by P.M.O. to
Government of Uttar Pradesh for action as appropriate as usually done
with the letters. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of
annexure 4 in two pages. 6- It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that as usual your applicant’s letter dated
27.12.2009 through chief secretary, chief minister office then higher
education ultimately reached to director higher education who is like
stumbling-block in the path of my letters. Here this question arises
that why director higher education has adopted 100% tolerance towards
corruption ipsofacto obvious. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the
perusal of annexure 5. This is humble request to you
Hon’ble Sir to pass an appropriate order as you Hon’ble Sir deem fit.
For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yours sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh Moh- Surekapuram,
Jabalpur Road, Dist- Mirzapur(U.P.) DATED15.4.2011 It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant submitted letter
petition addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India dated 25.4.2011.
Hon’ble Sir please take the perusal of aforesaid letter petition as
follows. Subject- Procrastinating delay on the part of
organs of government of uttar pradesh in dealing with the matter of
corruption even your applicant ran from pillar to post. Hon’ble Sir
Government of Uttar Pradesh always adopt lackadaisical approach in
dealing corruption issues, it never ever took solid and strong steps
in workingout corruption cases while its bureaucrats are indulged in
fabricating cases against whistle blowers on filmsy grounds.
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law as you Hon’ble Sir deem fit. For this your applicant shall
ever
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/28/11

to acph-rb
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect it is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that judgment delivered by division bench of Justices
Doraiswami Raju and Arijit Pasayat of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
published in the times of india, New Delhi with title “Court has to
give reasons for verdict” explicitly quoted that “Right to reason is
an indispensable part of sound judicial system” Here this question
arises that on one side Hon’ble Supreme Court of India consider even a
letter as writ petition under article 32 of constitution to provide
right to Justice to oppressed and downtrodden class in order to curb
the violation of their fundamental rights on the other hand registry
of Hon’ble Highest Court of India decide the fate of a PIL without
revealing the facts that “how and why” Hon’ble registrar of court
reached on the conclusion. Yours sincerely Yogi M. P




Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/30/11


to urgent-action
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to
draw the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir towards following submissions
as follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that India is a member country of UNO and right to justice is the
fundamental and human right of an individual . Whether Government of
India is not violating provisions of UN charter , UDHR and others
framed law for international community by depriving oppressed and
downtrodden section of society from their right to justice.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether a
common man has no locus standi to raise the voice of poor and
downtrodden against their exploitation if he has then why did the
government of india supress the voice of your applicant on filmsy
ground? This is humble request of your applicant to you
Hon’ble Sir to consider my e-mails and after taking perusal if Hon’ble
Sir deem fit to direct the member country for appropriate action then
your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. Yours
sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh Moh-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road,
Dist-Mirzapur State-Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001 , Country-INDIA.
To: acph-rb@rb.nic.in
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
11/27/11


to supremecourt
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to
draw the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir towards the letter
No.L.15012/1/2011-Jus, Government of India, Ministry of Law and
Justice, Department of Justice
Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi ,dated the 8th November
2011 as follows. To
The Registrar (Judicial) , Supreme Court of India, New
Delhi. Sub: Representation dated 28.09.2011 of
Shri Mahesh Pratap Singh, Mirzapur. Sir,
I am directed to forward herewith (in original) a
representation dated 28.09.2011 of Shri Mahesh Pratap Singh,
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur, received through the
President Secretariat, vide their letter No. P1/E/0410110286 dated
04.10.2011, for appropriate action as the subject matter of the
application pertains to Supreme Court of India. 2. It is
requested that the grievances/complaints under reference may kindly be
looked into and action taken as deemed appropriate at the earliest
under intimation to the applicant. Yours faithfully.
S. C. Mishra Under Secretary to the Government of
India Tel.#:23073178 Encls.:As above. Copy for
information to:- 1. Shri K. C. Jayarajan , Addl.
Comptroller, President Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi
w.r.to their letter No. P1/E/0410110286 dated 04.10.2011 2. Shri
Mahesh Pratap Singh Mohalla Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur(U.P.)
with a request to approach to the concerned court for further
correspondence, if any. You might be aware that the judiciary is
independent under the constitution and the Union Government does not
interfere in their working. Under signed by S. C. Mishra,
Under Secretary Government of India. It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that on aforesaid letter, no action
has been taken yet. This is humble
request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir to direct appropriate
authority to take action on my letters in accordance with law. For
this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. Yours
sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
Jan 14


to acph-rb
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to draw
the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir towards following submissions as
follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that CPIO/Additional Registrar, S.C.I., through its letter DY. No.
220/RTI/11-12/SCI dated 3-December 2011 informed your applicant that
it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the CPIO,
Supreme Court of India under R.T.I. Act 2005 to interpret the law,
judgements/orders of this Hon’ble Court or of any other court, to take
action against an authority or to direct an authority to take action,
to give explanation, opine, comment, or advice on matters. Your
request is not covered under section 2(f) of R.T.I. Act 2005.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to section
2(f) of R.T.I. Act 2005, information means any material in any form ,
including records,documents, memos, e-mails,opinions, advices, press
releases , circulars, reports, papers, samples, models, data material
held in any electronic form and information related to any private
body which can be accessed by public authority under any other law for
time being in force. Here according to CPIO , S.C.I. Arbitrary
decision of Registrar judicial , can not be questioned by any public
authority that why and how, he reached on the conclusion that
petitions submitted by your applicant before is not covered by P.I.L.
Guidelines? 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
according to section 4(1)(d) of R.T.I. Act 2005 , this is obligatory
duty of every public authority to provide reasons for its
administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. Here
CPIO of S.C.I. on filmsy ground is not making available the reason
that why and how Registrar judicial reached on the conclusion that
petitions submitted before chief justice of India by your applicant is
not covered by P.I.L. Guidelines? While the matter is concerned with
the misappropriation of public fund meant for poor people of country.
This is humble request of your applicant to you
Hon’ble Sir to direct appropriate authority to take action as required
by law. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yours sincerely. Yogi M. P. Singh Moh-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road,
Dist-Mirzapur(U.P.), INDIAMahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/21/11


to yogimpsingh
For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. Hon’ble
Sir. With due respect I want to draw kind attention of the
Hon’ble Sir towards following submissions as follows.
1- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that B.D.O. Chhanbey,
Mirzapur informed your applicant through its letter no. 948/est
clerk/RTI/2008-09 dated 7.2.2009 that in the gram panchayat- Nibi
Gaharwar under NREGA Rs.4700. 00(four thousand seven hundred only) has
been spent for the plantation scheme in the financial year 2006-2007.
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of annexure 1 as
appendage. 2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
that B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur (U.P.)again informed your applicant
through its letter no.1102/est clerk/RTI/2008-09 dated 20.3.2009 that
earlier it was stated that under NREGA Rs. 4700. 00(four thousand
seven hundred only) has been spent in the gram panchayat-Nibi Gaharwar
in the financial year 2006-2007. As well as B.D.O. Chhanbey also
stated that for your kind information under NREGA PLANTATION was
undertaken by the said gram panchayat only in the financial year
2006-2007. Prior and after this financial year this scheme was not
under taken. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexure
2. 3- It is submitted befor the Hon’ble Sir that
D.P.R.O. Mirzapur had made available information concerned with the
fund spent to carryout developmental activities in the gram
panchayat-Nibi Gaharwar up to 30.8.2008 in which it was expressed
obviously that Rs. 50419. 00(fifty thousand four hundred
nineteen)spent for the plantation under NREGA in the financial year
2007-2008. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexure 3.
4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that apparently from the
above earlier submissions ipsofacto there is no relevancy between the
developmental works performed in aforesaid gram panchayat and reports
made available to monitoring bodies. Here this question arises that
why there is such a large disparity in records of department? Hon’ble
Sir when the record of secretary of village differs from the record of
B.D.O. Chhanbey by the appreciable amount of Rs. 50419. 00(fifty
thousand four hundred nineteen) in regard to the one scheme, then what
happens with the district administration and state secretariat. Here
it is evident that such practice has been tradition in respect of
administrative function of state government otherwise necessary steps
were taken by Government of Uttar Pradesh against such errant public
servants who are running paper regarding the developmental activities
carriedout by the state government.
5- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that C.D.O. Mirzapur in its
letter no. 3975/stha.-3/RTI/2009-10 dated 28.1.2010 directed B.D.O.
Chhanbey, Mirzapur to made available action taken to your applicant as
well as C.D.O. Mirzapur took strong exception of not furnishing
approval to take punitive action against accused employee. Hon’ble Sir
may be pleased to take the perusal of annexure 4. 6- It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.D.O. Mirzapur through its
letter dated 19.5.2010 no.926 directed B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur to
take the perusal of annexure letter no.149 dated 5.5.2010 in which
P.I.O. Collectorate forwarded the letter of your applicant with
direction to made available desired information. Hon’ble Sir may be
pleased to take the perusal of annexure 5. 7- It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.D.O. Mirzapur through its
letter no. 4702 dated 19.3.2010 already directed B.D.O. Chhanbey,
Mirzapur to take the reference of the letter no.3975 dated28.1.2010 in
which approval was sought to take punitive action against accused
employee. B.D.O. Chhanbey was again directed by the D.D.O. Mirzapur to
take the action on aforesaid matter as directed and made available
action taken to your applicant. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a
glance of annexure 6.
8- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.D.O. Mirzapur again
directed B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur through its letter no.
1263/RTI/2010-11 dated 8.6.2010 that please take the perusal of letter
PI-111/38-7-10-11(RTI)/2010 dated 14may2010 in which under secretary
Rural Development section-7 government of uttar pradesh forwarded the
letter of your applicant to made available desired information
point-wise within prescribed time. B.D.O. Chhanbey was also reminded
that matter of Yogi M. P. Singh is pending since long time at the
level of you which is highly objectionable. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased
to take the perusal of annexure 7. 9- It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur took under teeth
the letters of P.M.O. , Chief Secretary office, Chief Minister’s
office as well as ministry-concerned. Here this question arises that
whether B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur is above the law? Why is he not
complying the directives of the senior authorities

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/22/11


to yogimpsingh
Whether there is rule of law in the state of uttar pradesh. In view of
your applicant, B.D.O. Chhanbey ranks at bottom in the administrative
hierarchy but how is he defying the orders of his seniors like
schizophrenic way ?is in itself a question. Apart from this, no
punitive action has been taken against B.D.O. Chhanbey. Ipsofacto law
has been taken under teeth by the B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur but no
action was taken against him why?can be well responded by chief
secretary government of uttar pradesh. This is humble request of
your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir to pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law as you Hon’ble Sir deem fit. For this your
applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. This is ultimate attempt of
your applicant. “O”GOD HELP ME Yogi M. P. Singh Moh- Surekapuram,
Jabalpur Road, Dist- Mirzapur(U.P.) DATED 25.4.2011
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant submitted a
communiqe under subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005 addressed
to C.P.I.O. Supreme Court of India dated 4.5.2011. Hon’ble Sir may be
pleased to take a glance as follows.
Subject- To furnish access to information as sought within time
specified under subsection 1 of section 7 of R.T.I. Act 2005.
Hon’ble Sir/Madam. With due respect, your kind attention
is drawn towards following points in reference of which you Hon’ble
Sir have to furnish access to information within prescribed time.
1- Please take the perusal of annexure 1 in four pages. This letter
petition dated 15.4.2011 whether has been received by the registry or
not. 2- If received, what action has been taken?
3- Please made available the noting if received.
4- Whether letter petition dated 15.4.2011 addressed to Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India is covered with P.I.L. Guidelines, if not, then why
and how? 5- Please take the perusal of annexure 2 in seven
pages. This letter petition dated 25.4.2011, whether has been received
by the registry or not. 6- If received, what action has been taken?
7- Please made available the noting if
aforesaid letter petition dated 25.4.2011 if received. 8- Whether the
letter petition dated 25.4.2011 addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India is covered with P.I.L. Guidelines or not, if not, then why and
how? This is humble request to you Hon’ble
Sir/Madam to furnish access to information as sought in accordance
with law. For this your communicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble
Sir/Madam. Yours sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh
Moh-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road , Dist- Mirzapur(U.P.) DATED 4.5.2011
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that CPIO Supreme Court of
India through its letter DY.No.220/RTI/11-12/SCI Dated-June3,2011
made available information as follows. Subject- Application
under Right to Information Act, 2005. Sir.
With reference to your application dated 4.5.2011 received by the
under signed on 9.5.2011. I write to inform you that your letter
petitions dated 15.4.2011&25.4.2011 were received and diarised as D.
Nos.10794/2011and 12370/2011 on 30.4.2011 and 9.5.2011 respectively
and same was lodged/filed being not covered under PIL Guidelines as
per orders of registrar dated 13.5.2011. Further, please find
enclosed here with true copy of noting on your letter petition dated
15.4.2011 and 25.4.2011. Supreme Court of India PIL(ENGLISH)CELL
Diary No.-10794/2011 &12370/2011 Name of Applicant-Yogi M. P.
Singh. The Petitioner is complaining against B.D.O. Chhanbey,
Mirzapur for not following the direction of higher authorities and is
indulged in corruption. The petitioner alleges that he is not spending
actual fund sanctioned for development of the village under NREGA. He
has enclosed information sought for from the concerned department
under RTI Act. He is requesting to pass an appropriate order in this
regard. The petitioner already approached to various concerned
authorities. No action is called for. If approved, we may lodge the
letter petitions. Sd/-(Dealing Assistant)11.5.2011 No action is
called for. If approved, letter petitions may be lodged. Sd/-(Branch
Officer) 12.5.2011 ‘A’ may pl. be approved. Sd/-(Additional
Registrar) 13.5.2011 blank space Sd/-(Registrar) It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that being aggrieved with this letter of CPIO,
Supreme Court of India, as was against the spirit of R.T.I. Act 2005,
your applicant filed an appeal dated12.6.2011 under subsection 1 of
section 19 of R.T.I. Act 2005 before F.A.A. Supreme Court of India.
Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of first appeal of your
applicant. Subject- To direct CPIO to made avilable complete
and point wise information as sought by your appellant under
subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005 through application
letter dated 4.5.2011.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh
9/22/11

to yogimpsingh
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to draw
kind attention of Hon’ble Sir towards the following submissions as
follows. 1- It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that your appellant through aforesaid R.T.I. letter dated 4.5.2011
desired point-wise information under 8-points. Hon’ble Sir may be
pleased to take the perusal of annexure 1 in three pages.
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your
appellant was made available incomplete and summary-wise information
by the CPIO through its letter dated 3.6.2011 which is illegal and
against the provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased
to take the perusal of annexure 2 in two pages.
3- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that it was mentioned by the
dealing assistant that petitioner already approached to various
concerned authorities but not mentioned that no solid and strong
action was taken by them even after longer duration caused to knock
the door of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Here order of Hon’ble Registrar
deprived the oppressed and downtrodden section from their right to
justice. 4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble
Sir that protection of ecology and environment and right to livelyhood
was not considered as ipso-facto obvious from the noting before
presenting the views. 5- It is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that dealing assistant only took the reference of
letter of petitioner dated 25.4.2011 only as ipso-facto obvious from
the noting in which it was alleged that B.D.O. Chhanbey, Mirzapur is
not complying the directions of his seniors and it seems that there is
no rule of law in uttar pradesh but it is unfortunate that he did not
take the reference of letter petition dated 15.4.2011 which is obvious
from the perusal of the note as annexure 2. Hon’ble Sir
may be pleased to pass an appropriate order to ensure transparency and
accountability in accordance with the provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005.
For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. Yours
sincerely Yogi M. P. Singh Moh- Surekapuram, Jabalpur
Road Dist- Mirzapur (U.P.) dated 12.6.2011
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that first appellate authority
Supreme Court of India delivered Judgement on 18th july 2011 on the
aforesaid first appeal and made available to your applicant through
note No. F.1/RTI/A.222/2011 Dated-28th july2011. Hon’ble Sir may be
pleased to take the perusal of order dated 18july2011 as follows.
This appeal arises from the reply dated 3.6.2011 in
Dy.No.220/RTI/11-12/SCI of the Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO), Supreme Court of India under R.T.I. Act 2005.
The appellant by his application dated 4.5.2011 sought
information with respect to his letter letter petition dated
15.4.2011action taken thereon and whether letter petition dated
15.4.2011 addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is covered by
PIL Guidelines and if not why and how. The CPIO by the impugned reply
informed that the letter petitions dated 15.4.2011 and 25.4.2011 were
received, diarised and were lodged being not covered under PIL
Guidelines. Dissatisfied with the above reply, the appellant has
preferred this appeal. After affording an opportunity of being heard,
appeal was taken for orders. Examined the records. The appellant
sought information with respect to his petitions. The CPIO has
furnished the details including the date of receipt of above, the
diary nos. and the fate of both the letter petitions and reason for
lodging. In appeal memorandum, the appellant has challenged the reply
of CPIO essentially on merits of his letter petitions. Evidently, the
CPIO has furnished the information to the extent held by CPIO. The
legality and correctness of the decisions taken by the administrative
authority in lodging the letter petitions are not amenable to
challenge in an appeal under R.T.I. Act. Hence, the appeal
is without any merit and is dismissed.

2 comments on To direct C.P.I.O. Supreme Court of India to made available complete and point-wise information

  1. Your appellant wants to draw kind attention of Hon'ble Sir
    towards news item published in leading daily "The Times of India"New
    Delhi on 25.12.2003 titled "Court has to give reasons for verdict" by
    Rakesh Bhatnagar. Please take the perusal as follows.
    In a major judgment, the Supreme Cour of India has held that "failure
    to give reasons(by a court)amounts to denial of justice" Earlier the
    court had held that not only does delayed justice amount to justice
    denied but delayed judgment also amounts to justice being denied.
    Faced with numerous cryptic judgments and orders passed by various
    highcourts giving no reason for their decision to either reject or
    accept the arguments of either of parties involved in the case, the
    apex court said "Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
    judicial system" It is submitted before the
    Hon'ble Sir that F.A.A. deprived your appellant from right to reason
    as well as disobeyed the order of Hon'ble Court which tantamount to
    contempt of court.

  2. It seems that convenience charge i.e. bribe for smooth move of file quite common in this system ,was not paid so director had created hindrances . Here is no rule of law and no corrupt public functionary is put behind the bar if he is influential. Dr. Vasudev Dev Yadav who is director of secondary education also the director of basic education. This man has amassed huge wealth and a case has been filed in the high court for C.B.I. inquiry for disproportionate assets but what is being done by High court every one knows. Whether it is justified that one man be directors of two important departments.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: