Why letters of PMO reference were taken under teeth by additional district judge Mirzapur?


Whether it is justified that Additional District Judge may be reluctant to reply letters of D.M. Mirzapur.

Inbox
x

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments10:07 PM (0 minutes ago)

to pmosb, urgent-action, supremecourt, hgovup, cmup
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sirs to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
12/15/13
to pmosb, supremecourt, cj, hgovup, urgent-action, cmup, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg,sec.sic
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.)   


2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may take a glimpse of letter of D.M. Mirzapur of July-2014 addressed to additional District Judge Mirzapur in which D.M. Mirzapur sought report from additional district judge Mirzapur. Unfortunately A.D.J. didn’t pay heed to letter of D.M. Mirzapur. Scanned copy is attached with this e-mail representation.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that public information officer collectorate Mirzapur sent the reminder to Additional District Judge Mirzapur through its letter no. 219 dated 26-July-2014 in regard to letter no.150 dated 4-July-2014 . A.D.J. was reminded that in earlier letter you had been requested that whatever action has been taken by you in regard to letter of Yogi M. P. Singh may be made available to this office but you no report was made available to this office. A.D.J. was again requested to made available point-wise report in regard to representation of Yogi M. P. Singh so that report be made available to information commissioner. Scanned copy of the reminder letter is attached with this e-mail representation.
        This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that when A.D.J. have no regard for the letters of Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh ,then how it is possible he may pay heed to the grievances of common countrymen. Whether this is not tyranny of a judicial member. Whether such tyranny in the system is tolerable as causing anarchy in the society. Please take action against such tyrant behaviour of erring judicial staff which is stumbling block in promoting rule of law. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                                       Yours sincerely
                                                                                     Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road , District-Mirzapur ,State-Uttar Pradesh ,Country-India

urgent-action@ohchr.org

Attachments10:07 PM (0 minutes ago)

to me

2 comments on Why letters of PMO reference were taken under teeth by additional district judge Mirzapur?

  1. 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.

  2. Really we are going to face a precarious situation where rule of law will have no value for protectors of law. Think about the gravity of situation where no punishment is awarded to judicial member who ask ladies witnesses to wearout clothes in order to check the age in his chamber. In the name of independence of judiciary, every Wrongdoers can be spared.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: