Whether High court of judicature at Allahabad willgive

I
paid Rs.1000.00 to District judge Mirzapur but not a single point information
was made available.
  
  
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh
<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Sun,
Dec 15, 2013 at 4:57 AM
To: pmosb
<pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cj
<cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, “hgovup@up.nic.in”
<hgovup@up.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup
<cmup@up.nic.in>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>, secypg
<secypg@nic.in>, ddpg2-arpg <ddpg2-arpg@nic.in>,
“sec.sic” <sec.sic@up.nic.in>
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 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.
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.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that decision taken by
District judge Mirzapur on 13.8.2010 sent to your applicant through
registered post is ultravires to Right to Information Act 2005 which was
challenged by your applicant in UPSIC and CPIO district court has been
penalized by pecuniary penalty of Rs.25000.00 by Hon’ble commission but
unfortunately stick to its earlier stand and on same ground later R.T.I.
communique was treated by making the mockery of the provisions of Right to
Information Act 2005. CPIO is additionally demanding R.T.I. fee while not a
single item information was made available as sought. 
 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
that 
Supreme Court
{1}
Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors.
(AIR2010SC615, 2010 1 AWC(Supp)703SC, 2010(2)BomCR258,
109(2010)CLT858, 2010(1)CTC342, JT2010(1)SC66, 2010(3)MhLJ6(SC),
(2010)1MLJ1319(SC), 2010(1)PLJR194, RLW2010(1)SC651, 2010(1)SCALE124,
(2010)2SCC1, (2010)1SCC(L&S)551, [2010]1SCR1, 2010(1)UC632 A)
Decided On: 04.01.2010
Case Note: 
Right to Information Act, 2005–Section 6–Information on
reasons for passing judicial order– Legality–Held–An applicant can get any
information which is already in existence and accessible to public authority
under law–But cannot ask any information as to why such opinion, advice etc.
have been passed especially in matters pertaining to judicial
decisions–Answers to those could not have been with the public authority nor
could he had access to the said information–Remedy for a party aggrieved there
by lies in a challenge by way of appeal, revision or any other legally
permissible mode–High Court rightly dismissed writ petition. [Para–5 and 8]
Here your applicant have sought the copy records
which are either missing from paper book or falsely accepted by A.C.J.M.
Mirzapur that D.M./DPRO complied the order of the court.Since the wrong has
been committed by staff of judiciary so by not providing sought information
to your applicant ,District judge only shielding the wrong doers. 
   4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
District Judge Mirzapur is neither providing the copy  of  sought
documents under Right to Information Act 2005 nor under appropriate procedure
of court.  While CPIO of court stated in its letter that 1-Saught information is concerned with
pending litigation in which information can be provided in accordance with
the general rule criminal. 
 
                     
                     
                     
                     
                    
                     
             This is humble request of
your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir to take action against the CPIO in
accordance with the law and be instrumental in providing me information.
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
  Yours sincerely.              
                     
                     
                     
                     
                   Yogi M.
P. SINGH  
 Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road , Dist- Mirzapur (U.
P.)   
Whether
your applicant can get justice in such anarchy.
  
  
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh
<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    Mon,
    Dec 9, 2013 at 7:38 AM
To: pmosb
<pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cj
<cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, “hgovup@up.nic.in”
<hgovup@up.nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup
<cmup@up.nic.in>, csup <csup@up.nic.in>, secypg
<secypg@nic.in>, ddpg2-arpg <ddpg2-arpg@nic.in>, uphrclko
<uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>
With due respect
your applicant wants 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 if the Hon’ble Sir will take the perusal of
page-1 page-2 page-3 of attached PDF ,then Hon’ble Sir will find that Enquiry
Officer Vijay Shankar,assistant engineer ,minor irrigation was nominated on
31.05.2006 by D.M. Mirzapur but how A.C.J.M. first Mirzapur took the
cognizance of case by considering the date of nomination of E.O. on
31.05.2007. When he is bound to deal with the evidences as it is.  
2-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
2.1. The High Court could
not have shifted the burden of proof on the
accused. According to the fundamental principles of the Evidence
Act, it is
for the prosecution to have proved its own case. The High Court
was not
justified in weaving out a different and new prosecution version.
The Court
is under the bounden duty and obligation to deal with the
evidence as it
is. No improvement or rewriting of evidence is permissible.
2.2. On careful consideration of the entire evidence, the
documents on
record and the reasoning given by the trial court for acquitting
the
accused and also the reasoning of the High Court for reversal of
the
judgment of acquittal, the view taken by the trial court is
certainly a
possible or plausible view. If the trial court’s view is possible
or
plausible, the High Court should not substitute the same by its
own
possible view. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
the High
Court in the impugned judgment was not justified in interfering
with the
well reasoned judgment and order of the trial court and the order
of High
Court is set aside.
Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of following link for
the judgement of Hon’ble Apex court-
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2012/05/court-is-bound-to-deal-evidences-as-it.html
3-It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may take a glance of following links-http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/05/eo-nominated-on-3152006-and-your_7.html
This is humble
request to you Hon’ble Sir to consider my submissions at the priority basis.
For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.      
                     
                     
                     
         Yours sincerely
   
                     
                     
                     
                  Yogi M. P.
Singh Mohalla-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur (U.P.)
India 
Whether
our judicial members has magic eye to see the documentary evidences.pdf

2 comments on Whether High court of judicature at Allahabad willgive

  1. Hon'ble Sir will take the perusal of page-1 page-2 page-3 of attached PDF ,then Hon'ble Sir will find that Enquiry Officer Vijay Shankar,assistant engineer ,minor irrigation was nominated on 31.05.2006 by D.M. Mirzapur but how A.C.J.M. first Mirzapur took the cognizance of case by considering the date of nomination of E.O. on 31.05.2007. When he is bound to deal with the evidences as it is.

  2. क्या यही न्याय ब्यवस्था है विश्व के सबसे बड़े लोकतंत्र की । इतनी बड़ी साजिस एक व्हिस्त्ल ब्लोअर को परेशान करने की जिससे वह भ्रस्ट लोक्सेव्क्को के खिलाफ आवाज उठाना बंद कर दे । 12।6।2008 के आदेश का कोर्ट ने अपने ही पारित आदेश का अनुपालन क्यों नहीं कराया ।कोर्ट के समक्ष ऐसी क्या विवशता थी यह तो सिर्फ न्यायिक अधिकारी ही बता सकते हैं ।

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: