Where is rule of law if CPIO High court,Allahabad is not complying direction of Chief Information Commissioner

DAK
Entry Details
DAK Entry Details
DAK recieved Date : 08-03-2017
Letter Dated : NA
Letter Number : NA
Diary Number : 601348
DAK Classification
Appeal/Complaint No. : NA
Choose Category : NA
Sender Details
Sender Belongs to : NA
Mode Of Communication : NA
Name : Yogi M.P.
Singh
Gender : Male
Country : India
Address : Mohalla­Surekapuram,
Jabalpur Road, Distt. Mirzapur, U.P.
State/Ut : Uttar
Pradesh
District : Mirzapur
City/Village : Mirzapur
city
Pincode : 231001
Telephone : 5442245032
Mobile No. : 7379105911
Email ID : yogimpsingh@gmail.com
Dealing Officer/Registry : Central
Registration
Remarks : NA

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Where is rule of law if CPIO High court,Allahabad is not complying the direction of Chief Information Commissioner of India.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 24 January 2016 at 12:44
To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cj <cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, secy-cic <secy-cic@nic.in>, dhirendra.k@nic.in

On number occasions Hon’ble Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India had articulated during election campaign that his government will protect the constitutional provisions but it seems that he doesn’t want to keep his promise after winning the election as usually done by so many leaders in India .
24 January 2016
10:42
Hon’ble Sir please direct central public information officer to comply the order dated 04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India.
To
                                                Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India
                                                     New Delhi India
Subject-Request to ensure compliance of order dated -04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble C.I.C. as consequent of hearing dated -26/10/2015. in appeal CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS.
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 order dated-04/11/2015 passed by Hon’ble C.I.C. Of  India
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2 nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI­110 066 TEL: 011­26717355  
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS 
Appellant: Shri Yogi M.P. Singh,           
Mohalla­Surekapuram,     Jabalpur Road,        
 Distt. Mirzapur, U.P.   
 Respondent:Central Public Information Officer
, Allahabad High Court,           Allahabad.                                                                     
Date of Hearing:      26.10.2015       
Date of Decision:   4.11.2015 
                                        O R D E R 
RTI application: 1. The   appellant   filed   an   RTI   application   dated   18.3.2014   seeking   information regarding copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad.   The PIO responded  on 27.3.2014.     The  appellant  filed first  appeal  dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority.  The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 24.9.2014 with the Commission. 
Hearing: 
2. The appellant participated in the hearing through audio.   The respondent did not participate in the hearing.  
3. The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application.  The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not.  The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided  
Decision: 
4.The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information sought in the RTI application.  The appeal is disposed of.  Copy of decision  be given free of cost to the parties. 
                                                                                                                                                                   (Vijai Sharma) 
                                                                                                                                                      Chief Information Commissioner   
Authenticated true copy   
(Dhirendra Kumar)    
Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar  
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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(it may be 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla) . 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 ( is the necessary party in the matter concerned) 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.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4, most surprising is that DIOS Mirzapur  states in its letter that he had complied the order of court but same was returned back by director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad . But the necessary party in the case ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court dated-16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla attached with this representation 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-1  Allahabad. Here this question arises that when counter affidavit was not submitted by director ,then how court will ascertain the role of director if he is found guilty of non -compliance  the order whether that will require one more writ already five writs filed by petitioner in order to seek justice so that his accountability may be decided. Why director secondary education Arth Allahabad did not comply the direction of High court at Allahabad? DIOS Mirzapur can submit its own submissions not on behalf of respondent 2 and 3 whether view points of DIOS can be view points of respondent 2 and 3. Respondent 2 and 3 still did not submit any counter submissions. Here petioner is aggrieved with the director as he superseded the direction of High court.
                                               
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
                            Yogi M. P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .


Ensure compliance of order of Hon’ble C.I.C..pdf
1340K

2 comments on Where is rule of law if CPIO High court,Allahabad is not complying direction of Chief Information Commissioner

  1. Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS
    Appellant: Shri Yogi M.P. Singh,
    Mohalla­Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road,
    Distt. Mirzapur, U.P.
    Respondent:Central Public Information Officer
    , Allahabad High Court, Allahabad.
    Date of Hearing: 26.10.2015
    Date of Decision: 4.11.2015
    O R D E R
    RTI application: 1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.3.2014 seeking information regarding copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad. The PIO responded on 27.3.2014. The appellant filed first appeal dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority. The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 24.9.2014 with the Commission.
    Hearing:
    2. The appellant participated in the hearing through audio. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.
    3. The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application. The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not. The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided
    Decision:
    4.The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information sought in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
    (Vijai Sharma)
    Chief Information Commissioner
    Authenticated true copy
    (Dhirendra Kumar)
    Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar

  2. Here this question arises that why public authority high court of judicature didn't comply the order of central information commission. Hearing:
    2. The appellant participated in the hearing through audio. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.
    3. The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application. The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not. The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided
    Decision:
    4.The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information sought in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
    (Vijai Sharma)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: