Why CPIO High court at Allahabad didn’t comply the order passed by central information commission.

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).

 

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Whether every one is alike before the law in this largest democracy in the world really.
1 message
yogimpsingh@gmail.com <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 1 November 2016 at 20:24
 

To: “supremecourt@nic.in” <supremecourt@nic.in>, “secy-cic@nic.in” <secy-cic@nic.in>
Cc: “pmosb@pmo.nic.in” <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, “urgent-action@ohchr.org” <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, “presidentofindia@rb.nic.in” <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>
Bcc: cmup@up.nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in

 

Please take a glance of  Date of Decision:   4.11.2015 passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India but not complied by CPIO High court of judicature at Allahabad .
Why CPIO High court at Allahabad didn’t comply the order passed by central
information commission.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
9:01 PM (1 minute ago)
to pmosb, supremecourt, cj, urgent-action, secy-cic, dhirendra.k, hgovup, cmup, csup
Whether independence of judiciary means tyranny and lack of transparency and accountability if not so then why public authority High court of judicature at Allahabad took under teeth the order passed by constitutional functionary central information commission. In ancient India ,Kings used to hang bell at the door of palace so that no justice seeker may be deprived from right to justice but here no justice is available to common citizenry unto death. It seems that honesty has been out of context otherwise no such serious issues concerned with mockery of provisions of constitution may arise before us.
01 February 2016
19:29
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
  1. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION2nd 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
  1. 2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that repeated representations made before the CPIO ,High court of judicature at Allahabad by your applicant but aforesaid direction passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India on 04/11/2015 was not complied by central public information officer of High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified on the part of public authority ,High court of judicature at Allahabad. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
  2. 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether the act of the central public information officer ,High court of judicature at Allahabad is not lowering the dignity of courts in India. Whether such act on the part CPIO is not tantamount to assault on set high standard norm ,ethical values and impeccable integrity of temple of justice. To whom CPIO wants to shield by not revealing the sought information ? In view of your applicant ,working style in judiciary must be crystal clear instead of such inscrutable sphinx.
Please take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
 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
Sent from Windows Mail

 

 

Mokery of Right to Information Act 2005 by High court itself.pdf
560K

3 comments on Why CPIO High court at Allahabad didn’t comply the order passed by central information commission.

  1. Whether independence of judiciary means tyranny and lack of transparency and accountability if not so then why public authority High court of judicature at Allahabad took under teeth the order passed by constitutional functionary central information commission. In ancient India ,Kings used to hang bell at the door of palace so that no justice seeker may be deprived from right to justice but here no justice is available to common citizenry unto death. It seems that honesty has been out of context otherwise no such serious issues concerned with mockery of provisions of constitution may arise before us.

  2. 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) Whether we are living in democratic republic or banana republic,

  3. Undoubtedly it is mockery of the law of land that Central Public Information Officer of the high court of judicature itself not complying the direction passed by the central information commission which is mockery of the right Information act 2005 that Central Public Information Officer of the high court of judicature itself not complying the order passed by a constitutional functionary while it is the obligation of the high court of judicature to establish the rule of law in the state

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: