Whether law department of Govt of Uttar Pradesh will provide information regarding anarchy of police?

 Explicit order of High court to seek civil remedy but Lucknow police provided criminal remedy what is the value courts in this largest democracy in the world?
PIO may provide following information point-wise as sought. 1-Provide feedback if    in the context of attached reference how Lucknow police have the power of a competent court to provide a civil remedy.

2-If High court decided for civil remedy subsequently the police can provide a criminal remedy in the reference matter by misleading the court . Provide feedback if any in support of police.

 

 

 

Your
RTI Request filed successfully.
Please
note down the following details for further references.
Registration Number
DPLAW/R/2019/60002
Name
Dinesh
Pratap Singh
Date of Filing
23-11-2019
RTI Fee Received
  10
Online Reference Number
IK0AIIILV8
Transaction Status
Success
Request filed with
Law
Department
 Contact
Details of Nodal Officer
Telephone Number
0522-2238108
Email-ID
Splsec.csec.lu-up@gmail.com
Registration Number
DPLAW/R/2019/60002
Name
Dinesh
Pratap Singh
Date of Filing
23/11/2019
Status
RTI
REQUEST RECEIVED as on 23/11/2019
Nodal Officer Details
Telephone Number
0522-2238108
Email-ID
Splsec.csec.lu-up@gmail.com
Online
RTI Request Form Details
Public Authority Details :-
* Public Authority
Law
Department
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Registration Number
DPLAW/R/2019/60002
Date of Filing
23/11/2019
* Name
Dinesh
Pratap Singh
Gender
Male
* Address
Mohalla
Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office
Pincode
231001
Country
India
State
Uttar
Pradesh
Status
Details
not provided
Pincode
Literate
Above
Graduate
Phone Number
Details
not provided
Mobile Number
+91-9838919619
Email-ID
myogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com
Request Details :-
Citizenship
Indian
* Is the Applicant
Below Poverty Line ?
No
((Description
of Information sought (upto 500 characters) )
* Description of
Information Sought
PIO
may provide following information point-wise as sought. 1-Provide feedback if
in the context of attached reference how Lucknow police have the power of a
competent court to provide a civil remedy.
2-If
High court decided for civil remedy subsequently the police can provide a
criminal remedy in the reference matter by misleading the court . Provide
feedback if any in support of police.
* Concerned PIO
Nodal
Officer
Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1
MB))
संदर्भ संख्या : 40015719066963
,
दिनांक – 23 Nov 2019 तक की स्थिति
आवेदनकर्ता का विवरण : शिकायत संख्या:-40015719066963
आवेदक का नामDinesh
Pratap Singh
विषयMost revered Sir Your applicant invites the kind
attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to the following submissions as
follows. 1It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 51A. Fundamental duties
It shall be the duty of every citizen of India a to abide by the Constitution
and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National
Anthem h- to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and
reform i to safeguard public property and to abjure violence j to strive
towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so
that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievement
. 2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to
take the perusal of the following submissions. Most respected Superintendent
of police, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the applicant aggrieved Dinesh
Pratap Singh, wants to draw the kind attention of the revered Sir to the order
passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad in
the Writ Petition Number135 HC Year 2006 as follows It is simply ordered that
the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the stair case so that Smt
Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper
and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the
liberty to go anywhere. Since it is not a case in the strict sense of illegal
detention, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent to produce
the detenue in the court and allow her to live free at her home but since she
can not take necessary steps for taking the remedy in the competent court,
therefore it is simply ordered that the alleged detenue Smt Anuradha Singh
shall be allowed to go out of the house and respondent number 4 to 7 shall
open the lock of the door and open the door so that Smt Anuradha Singh may
come out and take appropriate remedy. Dated07032006 Signed by the concerned
Honourable Justices of Division bench of Lucknow. It would be better to take
perusal by Sir itself. Respondent1State of U.P. through Secretary of home. 2S.S.P.
Lucknow 3S.H.O. Ashiyana Police station. Whether competent court means police
as defined by the aforementioned respondents To open the lock of the door and
open the door for seeking appropriate remedy means to open the door for always
and hatching a conspiracy against the applicant and his family. Consequently,
a fabricated First Information Report by colluding with the police was lodged
in the police station Ashiyana on 11 July 2009 after 3 years 4 months 4 days
of Judgement Dated 07/03/2006 under sections of I.P.C. as case number-269 2009 Indian
Penal Code sections 448,406,420,467,468,471,394 of India Penal Code. All these
documents were submitted by the police before the Lucknow bench of High court
of judicature at Allahabad and the court took the cognizance and passed the
order in accordance with the law but later on police found the records forged
and aforementioned fabricated charges not only framed on the applicant but on
his wife and daughter as well. Thus terrorized entire family so they fled by
putting locks in the rooms latter locks were broken and the entire house was
grabbed even valuables were looted. Which means Lucknow police had submitted
forged records before the High court along with the affidavit. Thus a
competent and appropriate court delivered the Judgement.
विभाग पुलिस शिकायत श्रेणी नियोजित तारीख31-10-2019
शिकायत की स्थितिस्तर क्षेत्राधिकारी स्तर पद क्षेत्राधिकारी प्राप्त रिमाइंडर
प्राप्त फीडबैक दिनांक05-11-2019 को फीडबैक:-श्री मान
जी कुंडी खोल कर दरवाजा खोलने का आदेश लखनऊ पीठ
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ने इसलिए दिया की अनुराधा सिंह उर्फ आराधना सिंह उर्फ गुड्डी सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष वाद प्रस्तुत कर सिविल उपचार हासिल करे | उपरोक्त ने क्या उपचार हासिल किया है | श्री मान जी किस
अधिसूचना के माध्यम से लखनऊ पुलिस को सिविल कोर्ट को दर्जा प्राप्त है या किसी सक्षम अधिकरण या न्यायालय ने लखनऊ पुलिस को अपना अधिकार डेलिगेट कर दिया है जिससे की लखनऊ पुलिस ने उपरोक्त महिला को जमीन और मकान का मालिकाना हक प्रदान कर दिया और सिर्फ प्रार्थी बल्कि औरत बेटी के खिलाफ संगीन धाराओं में मुक़दमा कर दिया और उनके हटते ही मकान का ताला तोड़ कर मकान पर कब्ज़ा कर लिया गया समस्त गृहस्थी और दुसरे कीमती सामानों को लूट
लिया गया
इस तरह
से लखनऊ पुलिस माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशो का अक्षरशः पालन किया है | श्री मान जी दश भिन्न भिन्न शिकायतों में एक ही रिपोर्ट लगा
कर लखनऊ पुलिस अपने दायित्वों से इति श्री कर लेती है या तो पुलिस विभाग को शिकायतों का निवेदन समझ में
नही आता
या जान
बूझ कर समझने का प्रयास नही करते | मामले में सम्बंधित पुलिस कर्मियों के विरुद्ध नियमानुसार कार्यवाही होनी चाहिए और उच्च न्यायालय आदेश की यथा
स्थिति बहाल होनी चाहिए | पुलिस का रिपोर्ट सिर्फ भ्रामक है किसी भी तरह
से स्वीकार किया जाता तो उच्च न्यायालय के द्वारा पारित आदेश का उल्लंघन होगा |
फीडबैक की स्थिति
फीडबैक प्राप्त संलग्नक देखें
नोट– अंतिम कॉलम में वर्णित सन्दर्भ की स्थिति कॉलम-5 में अंकित अधिकारी के स्तर पर हुयी कार्यवाही दर्शाता है!
अधीनस्थ द्वारा प्राप्त आख्या :
क्र..
सन्दर्भ का प्रकार
आदेश देने वाले अधिकारी
आदेश/आपत्ति दिनांक
आदेश/
आपत्ति
आख्या देने वाले अधिकारी
आख्या दिनांक
आख्या
स्थिति
संलग
नक
1
अंतरित
ऑनलाइन
सन्दर्भ
01-10-2019
क्षेत्राधिकारी
क्षेत्राधिकारी कैंट ,जनपदलखनऊ
22-10-2019
प्रस्तुत प्रकरण की जांच की गयी |जांच आख्या संलग्न है |
निस्तारित

 

3 comments on Whether law department of Govt of Uttar Pradesh will provide information regarding anarchy of police?

  1. Explicit order of High court to seek civil remedy but Lucknow police provided criminal remedy;vIt is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the stair case so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Since it is not a case in the strict sense of illegal detention, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent to produce the detenue in the court and allow her to live free at her home but since she can not take necessary steps for taking the remedy in the competent court, therefore it is simply ordered that the alleged detenue Smt Anuradha Singh shall be allowed to go out of the house and respondent number 4 to 7 shall open the lock of the door and open the door so that Smt Anuradha Singh may come out and take appropriate remedy.

  2. Now it is obligation of the department of law to take initiatives in order to damage control.If there is explicit order to get civil remedy from competent court, then why concerned made mockery of law of land by taking under teeth direction of the court.
    Registration Number DPLAW/R/2019/60002
    Name Dinesh Pratap Singh
    Date of Filing 23/11/2019
    Status RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 23/11/2019
    Nodal Officer Details
    Telephone Number 0522-2238108
    Email-ID Splsec.csec.lu-up@gmail.com

  3. Undoubtedly the matter is concerned with rampant corruption in the government machinery and Law Ministry of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is avoiding to provide sought information to the the the information seeker Dinesh Pratap Singh who is the aggrieved itself and he had to provide sought information but yesterday a message had come from the online RTI portal of the Government of Uttar Pradesh that matter has been forwarded to the ministry of home affairs government of Uttar Pradesh as Matter was closely connected with the home department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh but here this question arises that when earlier aggrieved applicant Dinesh Pratap Singh was seeking information from the home secretary government of Uttar Pradesh then he did not provide sought information and first appeal has been made in the matter and even then they had not provided the information and this question arises that when they had not provided information earlier how will they provide now?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: