Where is the justice for common people in this largest democracy in the world.?

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).

 How much ridiculous that rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court
(Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is contrary to spirit of this judgment but
under force because transparency and accountability is main foe of judicial
members working at judicature of High court at Allahabad . Here this question
arises that what is the set up norm in order to get the information concerned
with the compliance of High court order . Here information seeker is only
seeking that after 8 years whether director secondary education has complied
the High court order to submit counter affidavit and not the view point of
judicial member or not trying to get redress of the grievance. Whether this is
not anarchy that director secondary education didn’t comply the order of High
court even after eight years. Here  CPIO don’t want to inform that
Director secondary took under teeth the direction of High court by overlooking
order of High court. As this will lower the image of court and every will know
that what is going on in our courts.

3 comments on Where is the justice for common people in this largest democracy in the world.?

  1. Here information seeker is only seeking that after 8 years whether director secondary education has complied the High court order to submit counter affidavit and not the view point of judicial member or not trying to get redress of the grievance. Whether this is not anarchy that director secondary education didn't comply the order of High court even after eight years. Here CPIO don't want to inform that Director secondary took under teeth the direction of High court by overlooking order of High court. As this will lower the image of court and every will know that what is going on in our courts.

  2. How much ridiculous that rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is contrary to spirit of this judgment but under force because transparency and accountability is main foe of judicial members working at judicature of High court at Allahabad .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: