When registrar general doesn’t know the specified time to decide an appeal under transparency act.

Why Registrar General High court at Allahabad didn’t consider my appeal submitted before him under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to information Act 2005 within specified time as described under transparency act.


Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

9:51 AM (4 minutes ago)

to urgent-actionsupremecourtpmosbddpg2-arpgsecypghgovupcsupcmup
                                    Registered post dated-31-March-2014
An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. 
To
        Registrar General /First appellate authority ,  High court at Allahabad.
Prayer -Please direct the central public information officer to made available sought information as your appellant sought through the RTI communique dated-19.03.2014. Copy is enclosed with this appeal.
Short submissions are as follows-
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that C.P.I.O. denied the sought information on the ground of rule 25 as-
25. Central Public Information Officer shall not be liable to provide any information, which can be obtained under the provision of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 in case of High Court and under General Rule (Civil/Criminal) in case of subordinate Courts. Such information may be obtained by adhering to the prescribed procedure and payment of fees prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, or General Rules (Civil/Criminal), as the case may be.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html>
And rule 26 as-26. Central Public Information Officer will not entertain any application from any citizen for providing any information relating to matters, which are pending adjudication before the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto. The information relating to judicial matters may be obtained as per the procedure prescribed in the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 and General Rules (Civil/Criminal) respectively.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html>
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Thanks to chief justice of India for being instrumental to information seekers .
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
7:27 PM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#58
W. P. (C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Mr. Ritesh
Kumar, Mr. K. P. S. Kohli, Ms. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Piyush Sanghi and Mr.
Yashwardhan, Advocates.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS …..
Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
O R D E R
23.05.2011
CM APPL No. 7380 of 2011 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W. P. (C) 3530/2011 and CM APPL No. 7379/2011 (for stay)
3. An important question that arises in the present writ petition is whether an
application seeking information relating to court proceedings can be processed
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 notwithstanding that there exist rules
of procedure of the court concerning the disclosure of such information to the
applicant.
4. Issue notice to Respondent No. 1, returnable on 24th August 2011. Dasti in
addition. Respondents 2 and 3 are formal parties and no notice need to be issued
to them.
5. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of the impugned order
of the Central Information Commission (?CIC?). The CIC will also not proceed
with petitions involving similar questions till a decision is rendered in the
present writ petition.
6. Order dasti.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 23, 2011
akg
$
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K.P.S. Kohli, Mr Abhishek Kumar, Mr D. Ray,
Mr Siddharta Tyagi and Ms Vaneesha Singh, Advs.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr R.K. Choudhary, Adv. for the applicant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
22.02.2013
CM No. 2236/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 2235/2013 (O. 1 R. 10 of CPC)
After some arguments learned counsel for the applicant seeks to
withdraw the application.
The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3318/2012
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
versus
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamik Narain, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
19.12.2012
CM No.19871/2012 (for extension of time)
The order qua which extension of time is sought was passed on
01.11.2012. The application has been filed after nearly one and a half
months. There is no acceptable reason given, for me to acquiesce to, the
prayer for extension of time to file an affidavit or to grant an
adjournment.
There is no order of any appellate Court brought to my notice. The
only averment which has been made is that a SLP has been filed on
10.12.2012. No order of the Supreme Court has been brought to my notice.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 19, 2012
yg $ 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
W.P.(C) 3318/2012 and CM Nos. 7059/2012 and 10325/2012 
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv.
versus 
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr Prashant Bhushan, Mr Ramesh
K. Mishra and Mr Samik Narain, Advs. for R-1 with Mr Shailesh Gandhi, R-1
in person. CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R 
10.01.2013 
Mr Gonsalves submits that respondent no.1 had filed a SLP, which
was dismissed as withdrawn; though, the order passed in those proceedings
not been placed before me. The statement, however, is taken on record.
Pursuant to the order of this court, Mr Shailesh Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1 has entered appearance.
Mr Bansal submits, on instructions, that he does not wish to press the writ petition and seeks liberty to withdraw the same.
Mr Gonsalves, on instructions of Mr Shailesh Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1, says that he does not oppose the withdrawal of the
petition. 
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications
are also disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 10, 2013

Pasted from <http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2013/03/thanks-to-chief-justice-of-india-for.html>

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that under R.T.I. Act 2005 ,CPIO can withhold the information under section 8 and 9 of R.T.I. Act 2005 or if sought information is for redressal of grievance .
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
But this information may be available in record of court and can be made available under existing High court rules as accepted by CPIO and will insure transparency and accountability and information seeker is seeking this document on behalf of his father under transparency act.
4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
5- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
4. Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of Rs. 500/- drawn in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, or the District Judge of the concerned District Court as the case might be.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html> Undoubtedly  C.P.I.O. High court has compassion with me so he returned the postal orders but in next proceedings ,it will create difficulty for me so Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to cash it. As it is postal orders are annexed with this appeal. Copy of the letter of C.P.I.O. dated 27-March-2014 is annexed with this appeal.
    This is humble request to you Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to pass appropriate order so that copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1Allahabad  be made available to your appellant within prescribed time . If not available even after eight years ,then your appellant may be told that how more time will be taken by director to comply the order of High court. For this your appellant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                    Yours sincerely
                                            Yogi  M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh)
Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.) India  

3 comments on When registrar general doesn’t know the specified time to decide an appeal under transparency act.

  1. Why Registrar General High court at Allahabad didn't consider my appeal submitted before him under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to information Act 2005 within specified time as described under transparency act.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.

  2. Here this question arises that why Registrar General didn't consider the appeal when it was his obligatory duty to take action on the appeal within 30 days from the date when appeal is received the office of appellant. Here two question arises 1-Either Registrar General doesn't know the provisions of transparency act or 2-He deliberately violated the provisions of the transparency act. Both the situations are terrible and signal of anarchy. The order passed by High court is specially for director secondary education as he took under teeth the direction of High court so he had to submit the counter affidavit within three weeks and registrar had to get compliance of the order of High court but that was not done. That is why Registrar is running away from entertaining the first appeal submitted by the Hon'ble member.

  3. Here inordinate delay in court cases is justified that each decision requires well processing but here in the name of processing only attendance takes places. Proceedural lacunae itself hindrance in the justice delivery .Today a common man fears in the name of courts. Several families ruined in facing this cumbersome process of courts. No judicial reformatory steps were taken ever by any Government.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: