Whether counter affidavit of director secondary education Arth is not mandatory in court? Rule of law

Allahabad High Court

Daily Status

Allahabad High Court In The Court Of :Justice Case Number :WRIA/0020121/2006 RAJENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
 Versus 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Date  : 17-04-2019

Business
:
Nature of Disposal
:
Dismiss
other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
Disposal Date
:
17-04-2019
Justice

Allahabad
High Court

Allahabad
High Court

Case
Details

Case Type
: WRIA

Filing
Number: 20121/2006
Filing Date: 10-04-2006

Registration
Number
: 20121/2006Registration
Date: 10-04-2006

CNR
Number: UPHC01-129183-2006

Case Status

First Hearing Date : 08th
January 2018

Decision Date: 17th
April 2019

Case Status : CASE
DISPOSED

Nature of Disposal: Contested–Dismiss
other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)

Coram : 5038SUNEET
KUMARBench : Single BenchState : UTTARPRADESH District
: MIRZAPUR Judicial : WRITS Causelist Name : Daily Cause List
Short Order : PREMPTORILY

Petitioner
and Advocate

1) RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH

 Advocate-
P.C. CHAUHAN P.S.CHAUHAN,S.P. SINGH

 Respondent
and Advocate

1) STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS

Advocate
– C.S.C.

 Subordinate
Court Information

Court
Number and Name
: ADJ .ATRAULI

Case
Number and Year
: 2

Case
Decision Date :
: —

state

District

IA
Details

IA
Number
Party
Date
of Filing
Next
Date
IA
Status
IA/1/2006
(265508/2007 )
Classification : Listing Application
RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
06-11-2007
Pending
IA/2/2006
(76919/2006 )
Classification : Stay Application
RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
10-04-2006
Pending
IA/3/2006
(222357/2006 )
Classification : Listing Application
RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
17-10-2006
19-10-2006
Disposed
IA/4/2018
Classification : Suppl. Counter Affidavit
RAJENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
03-11-2018
13-11-2018
Pending

History
of Case Hearing

Cause
List Type
Judge
Business
On Date
Hearing
Date
Purpose
of hearing
SUNEET KUMAR
Disposed
12-04-2006
Disposed
20-01-2018
Disposed
Disposed
Disposed
Disposed
Disposed
Disposed
Daily Cause List
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
22-03-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
30-03-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
09-04-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJIT KUMAR
16-04-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJIT KUMAR
24-04-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJIT KUMAR
01-08-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
10-08-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
10-08-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
18-08-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
04-09-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
11-09-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
AJAY BHANOT
24-09-2018
For Admission
Additional/Unlisted
List
AJAY BHANOT
01-10-2018
For Admission
Daily Cause List
SUNEET KUMAR
17-04-2019
For Admission

Order not uploaded
by concerned court

Category
Details

Category
WRIT PETITIONS
RELATING TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (NON TEACHING STAFF) (SINGLE BENCH) ( 15900 )
Sub Category
Salary and
allowances ( 5 )

Pasted
from <http://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/case_no.php?state_cd=13&dist_cd=1&court_code=1&stateNm=Uttar%20Pradesh>

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
08th
January 2018
Date of
Decision
17th
April 2019
Case
Status
Case
Disposed
Nature
of Disposal
Dismiss
other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
Stage of
Case
For
Admission
Coram (
Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice )
SUNEET
KUMAR ( 5038 )
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
IA/4/2018 Classification
:
Suppl. Counter Affidavit Bench : 4783
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
03-11-2018
13-11-2018
Pending


Last Listing Detail

Cause
List Type
Hon’ble
Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice
Last
Listing Date
Stage
of Listing
Last
Short Order
Daily
Cause List
SUNEET KUMAR ( Bench: 5038 )
10-04-2019
For
Admission
PREMPTORILY


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).

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
08th
January 2018
Date of
Decision
17th
April 2019
Case
Status
Case
Disposed
Nature
of Disposal
Dismiss
other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
Stage of
Case
For
Admission
Coram (
Hon’ble Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice )
SUNEET
KUMAR ( 5038 )
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
IA/4/2018 Classification
:
Suppl. Counter Affidavit Bench : 4783
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS
03-11-2018
13-11-2018
Pending


Last Listing Detail

Cause
List Type
Hon’ble
Mr./Ms./Dr. Justice
Last
Listing Date
Stage
of Listing
Last
Short Order
Daily
Cause List
SUNEET KUMAR ( Bench: 5038 )
17-04-2019
For
Admission
PREMPTORILY


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).

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Lawlessness, anarchy and arbitrariness originates from uncontrolled powers given to public servants.There must be proper mechanism to control it.
2 messages
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 March 2018 at 17:11

To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, “sec. sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>


Subject-Whether violations of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 can be allowed by chief information commissioner of India only because of the matter was concerned with the public authority High court of Judicature at Allahabad and overlooked the prayer of information seeker in this regard?
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 at the first and second page of attachment with this representation. CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 on 22-March-2018 ipso facto obvious from his own communication. 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 it seems that result will be null.
Booked At
Booked On
Destination Pincode
Tariff
Article Type
Delivered At
Delivered On
MIRZAPUR H.O
24/03/2018
Event Details For : EU304043089IN Current Status : Item delivered [To: .. ]
Date
Time
Office
Event
24/03/2018
16:55:00
MIRZAPUR H.O
Item delivered [To: .. ]
24/03/2018
08:29:09
MIRZAPUR H.O
Item Received
23/03/2018
20:17:20
ICH MIRZAPUR
Item Received
23/03/2018
20:17:20
ICH MIRZAPUR
Bag Opened
23/03/2018
20:08:39
ICH MIRZAPUR
Bag Received
23/03/2018
03:43:56
NSH ALLAHABAD
Bag Despatched to ICH MIRZAPUR
23/03/2018
01:13:10
NSH ALLAHABAD
Item Bagged for ICH MIRZAPUR
22/03/2018
18:50:54
NSH ALLAHABAD
Item Received
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
SEARCH RESULTS
RESULTS FOR FILE NUMBER: CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
PARTICULARS
DESCRIPTION
Name
YOGI M P SINGH
Address
MOHALLA SUREKAPURAM, JABALPUR ROAD, DISTT. MIRZAPUR.
File No.
CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
File Admitted date
05-05-2017
DAK Status
Pertaining CIC/IC
Radha Krishna Mathur
Public Authority
High Court of Other States
CPIO Address
The CPIO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Speed Post number
Hearing notice issued — Hearing is scheduled and date and venue conveyed.
SEARCH RESULTS
RESULTS FOR FILE NUMBER: CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
PARTICULARS
DESCRIPTION
Name
M P SINGH
Address
MOHALLA SUREKAPURAM, JABALPUR ROAD, DISTRICT MIRZAPUR 231001.
File No.
CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
File Admitted date
04-07-2017
DAK Status
Pertaining CIC/IC
Radha Krishna Mathur
Public Authority
High Court of Other States
CPIO Address
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Speed Post number
Hearing notice issued — Hearing is scheduled and date and venue conveyed.
Hearing Schedule
Sl.No.
File No.
Name Of Appellant/Complainant
IC Name
Public Authority
Date of Hearing
Time of Hearing
Bench Details
Action
1
CIC/HCOST/A/2017/143530
M P SINGH
Radha Krishna Mathur
High Court of Other States
23/03/2018
12:00 PM
Single Bench
Hearing Schedule
Sl.No.
File No.
Name Of Appellant/Complainant
IC Name
Public Authority
Date of Hearing
Time of Hearing
Bench Details
Action
1
CIC/HCOST/A/2017/128589
YOGI M P SINGH
Radha Krishna Mathur
High Court of Other States
23/03/2018
12:00 PM
Single Bench
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following order was passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India but it is unfortunate that CPIO, High court of Judicature at Allahabad still not complied the order. 
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd 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 a copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad.   The PIO responded on 27.3.2014.     The appellant filed the first appeal dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority.  The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed the 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 a 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, the 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  
The copy of the aforementioned decision is annexed with this representation as page 3 and 4.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle around 350 BC. Plato wrote: “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state”. Likewise, Aristotle also endorsed the concept of Rule of law by writing that “law should govern and those in power should be servants of the laws.”
Where is the rule of law in this country? Whether Judges are not public servants and they are not accountable to be governed? On one side of the screen, we term them as public servants but on another side of the screen, they are more tyrant than a monarch.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether the motive of independence of the judiciary is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of a member or increase tyranny and arbitrariness in the system. Whether the power of contempt is to establish the rule of law or suppress the voice seeking transparency and accountability as the applicant was deprived of sought information in the name of contempt of court? Where is the supremacy of law if really there is supremacy of law, then what is the cause of repeated violations of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005?  Dicey asserted that wherever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness.
                                    This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the 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.


Mockery of Right to Information Act and tyranny in Highcourt.pdf
1827K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 April 2018 at 13:30

To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, “sec. sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>


Subject- CPIO made available the denial of sought information dated 27/11/2016 on 22-March-2018 ipso facto obvious from his own communication. 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.

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 whether undue, deliberate, willful delay i.e. 1 year 03 months and 25 days in denying sought information on the part of CPIO High court of Judicature can be condoned by the chief information commissioner of India. Most surprising when the applicant sought evidence in regard to claim of CPIO that he had provided the sought information during the hearing, then Chief Information Commissioner of India told me that his information is annexed to the paper book. Whether rule of law means, in the largest democracy like India, constitutional functionaries will be above the law?
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that during the hearing the applicant sought penal action against both CPIO and registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad as duo violated the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 but the plea of the applicant overlooked by the chief information commissioner of India ipso facto obvious from the attached scanned copy of judgment of chief information commissioner of India. Whether under such circumstances, to seek information from the High court of Judicature at Allahabad is feasible? If the audio or video copy of the proceedings may be available, then please take a glance at proceedings.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that the applicant has paid Rs.250  not only Rs.50 as written in the order passed by the chief information commissioner of India and CPIO had asked me to pay the amount so that sought information could be made available but once the fee /demand draft made available neither CPIO nor registrar general High court of Judicature at Allahabad communicated and denial was made available by the CPIO after hearing took place before the chief information commissioner of India i.e. after 23-March-2018. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance at the attached scanned copy of the documents.

                                           This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the 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.


 

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
If director superseded the order of court ,then why counter affidavit only by most junior officer DIOS.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 25 November 2013 at 21:46

To: pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, cj <cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, “hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>, secypg <secypg@nic.in>, ddpg2-arpg <ddpg2-arpg@nic.in>, lokayukta@hotmail.com


  • Director took under teeth the order of High court not DIOS so counter affidavit of Director is must.

Outlook Active View

2 attachments (total 1020.6 KB)
Download Mockery of order of Hon'ble High court by Director secondary education.pdf (857.3 KB)
Mockery of order of Hon’ble High court by Director secondary education.pdf
Download
Download Why anomaly is not being checked by the competent authorities.pdf (163.3 KB)
Why anomaly is not being checked by the competent authorities.pdf
Download
Hon’ble Sir-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 from the attachment it is obvious from point 5 that salary fixation was made on 28.8.2004 by DIOS Mirzapur.                                                                                                           2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from point 6 that on dated 6.11.2004 arrears Rs.409009.00 (from 1.8.90 to 2.6.2004) was sent to joint director education (Arth) Allahabad for grant in order to get sanctioned.                                                                  3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from points 7,8,9, reminders dated 14.1.2005 ,18.5.2005 and 21.6.2005 were sent to joint director education  (arth) Allahabad in order to get the grant to be sanctioned so dues may be paid to Rajendra Pratap Singh in to comply the order passed on 16.4.2004 by judicature of high court at Allahabad but  these reminders were not taken seriously by aforesaid authority. According to delivered delivered judgement dated 16.4.2004 –“Accordingly,the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.8.90 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service forthwith and will be entitled to all the consequential benefits . However , he will be entitled to only 50% of emoluments of salary for the period of litigation up to the final order of this court.”                                                                                4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from point  10 that on 13.7.2005 , Director secondary education , uttar pradesh .Lucknow was apprised with the fact that sanction of grant is awaited at the level of joint director education (arth) Allahabad.                              5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from points 12 and 13 that the order of Hon’ble High court Allahabad  dated 16.9.2005 was for  joint director education (arth) Allahabad.                                                                                                      6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from points 14 that director education (arth) Allahabad returned back the documents sent in order to sanction grant  to pay dues through letter 1.2.2006 with quote that according to High court ,ordinary salary be paid of termination period so new salary fixation be made available. Whatever proceeding made by DIOS in more than one year same was made in 48 hours.                                                                                         7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether Hon’ble High court has said in its order that petitioner be deprived all consequential benefits during the termination period ? no Hon’ble court said as- “Accordingly,the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.8.90 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service forthwith and will be entitled to all the consequential benefits . However , he will be entitled to only 50% of emoluments of salary for the period of litigation up to the final order of this court.” Ordinary salary word was created by director education (arth) Allahabad                                                                                 8-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that from the attachment it is obvious from points 15  that aggrieved petitioner took the shelter fourth time in the High court at Allahabad and filed petition against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 issued by director education (arth) Allahabad and Hon’ble High court passed the in writ no.20121/06 on 13.4.2006 that apparently the director education (arth) Allahabad through its order dated 1.2.2006 took under teeth the direction of High court ……. so counter affidavit may be submitted within ….. but counter affidavit was submitted by DIOS Mirzapur not by three others. More surprising is that director education (arth) Allahabad itself didn’t submit counter affidavit.                                                                                             9-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that order passed  by High court at Allahabad on13.4.2006  was specially against director education (arth) Allahabad but the counter affidavit was submitted by DIOS on behalf of other three senior rank officer to DIOS. Here this question arises that whether for aforesaid impugned order of Director education (arth) Allahabad DIOS is accountable. When my father will get the justice?      This is humble request to you Hon’ble Sir that Right to justice is the fundamental right and right to reason is indispensable part of sound judicial system as quoted by Hon’ble Apex court on number occasions  but both are absent in this case. Multiple cases are being filed but no result is cultivated and erring staff of Government is not booked because process of the courts are far away from real offender and core issues.  For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.                                              Yours sincerely                                                                                     Yogi M. P. Singh, Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, 

Status as on 25 Nov 2013

Registration Number : GOVUP/E/2013/00530
Name Of Complainant : Yogi M P Singh
Date of Receipt : 08 Apr 2013
Received by : Government of Uttar Pradesh
Officer name : Shri Yogendra Dutt Tripathi
Officer Designation : Under Secretary (PG)
Contact Address : Chief Minister Secretariat
U.P. Secretariat,
Lucknow226001
Contact Number : 05222215137
Grievance Description : 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 office 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. 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 noncomplying the order whether that will require one more writ 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. 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.
Current Status : RECEIVED THE GRIEVANCE
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/03/if-director-took-under-teeth-order-of.html
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/10/director-superseded-order-of-high-court.html
How many writs are filed in order to get the compliance of the court order in this vast democracy of world?






[Quoted text hidden]


Undue deliberate delay by CPIO Highcourt condoned by CIC.pdf
950K

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yogi
1 year ago

Decision:

4.The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the 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

Yogi
1 year ago

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 a 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, the 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

Beerbhadra Singh
1 year ago

Undoubtedly director Secondary Education Arth is the main party whose order has been challenged by the litigant so he must submit the counter affidavit even when the court has asked to do so but it is unfortunate that he has not submitted the counter affidavit in the high court of judicature at Allahabad when the court has ordered him. Everyone knows that there is huge backlog of the cases in the high court of judicature at Allahabad so there are many cases which are languishing in the court. How can it be feasible that those orders which has been challenged in the court the order passed by the person may not be obliged to submit the counter affidavit. Think about the gravity of situation that director Secondary Education superseded the order of the high court of judicature but it is unfortunate not a single reply was submitted by him under his signature which implies that such arbitrariness will remain in the system.

Preeti Singh
1 year ago

Where is accountability in this largest democracy in the world? They openly sought commission and when not paid created hurdle in the path of compliance of an explicit order of the Hon'ble High court of judicature at Allahabad.
Hon'ble Sir order passed by High court at Allahabad on13.4.2006 was specially against director education (arth) Allahabad but the counter affidavit was submitted by DIOS on behalf of other three senior rank officer to DIOS. Here this question arises that whether for aforesaid impugned order of Director education (arth) Allahabad DIOS is accountable.

Bhoomika Singh
Bhoomika Singh
10 months ago

If the high court of judicature at Allahabad sought affidavit form director Secondary Education why did he not submit the affidavit before the high court of judicature at Allahabad as he had super superseded the the direction of the high court of judicature at Allahabad so he must be accountable but this did not happen because of the rampant corruption in the government machinery and high court of judicature at Allahabad is also not untouchable from this menace cum social evils.