Why ministry of law and justice sent letter of PMO to secretary department of Higher education instead of High court?


Why Registrar General High court at Allahabad didn’t consider my appeal submitted before him under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to information Act 2005 within specified time as described under transparency act.

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

May 3

to urgent-actionsupremecourtpmosbddpg2-arpgsecypghgovupcsupcmup
                                    Registered post dated-31-March-2014
An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. 
To
        Registrar General /First appellate authority ,  High court at Allahabad.
Prayer -Please direct the central public information officer to made available sought information as your appellant sought through the RTI communique dated-19.03.2014. Copy is enclosed with this appeal.
Short submissions are as follows-
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that C.P.I.O. denied the sought information on the ground of rule 25 as-
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.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html>
And rule 26 as-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.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html>
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Thanks to chief justice of India for being instrumental to information seekers .
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
7:27 PM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#58
W. P. (C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Mr. Ritesh
Kumar, Mr. K. P. S. Kohli, Ms. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Piyush Sanghi and Mr.
Yashwardhan, Advocates.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS …..
Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
O R D E R
23.05.2011
CM APPL No. 7380 of 2011 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W. P. (C) 3530/2011 and CM APPL No. 7379/2011 (for stay)
3. An important question that arises in the present writ petition is whether an
application seeking information relating to court proceedings can be processed
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 notwithstanding that there exist rules
of procedure of the court concerning the disclosure of such information to the
applicant.
4. Issue notice to Respondent No. 1, returnable on 24th August 2011. Dasti in
addition. Respondents 2 and 3 are formal parties and no notice need to be issued
to them.
5. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a stay of the impugned order
of the Central Information Commission (?CIC?). The CIC will also not proceed
with petitions involving similar questions till a decision is rendered in the
present writ petition.
6. Order dasti.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 23, 2011
akg
$
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K.P.S. Kohli, Mr Abhishek Kumar, Mr D. Ray,
Mr Siddharta Tyagi and Ms Vaneesha Singh, Advs.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr R.K. Choudhary, Adv. for the applicant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
22.02.2013
CM No. 2236/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 2235/2013 (O. 1 R. 10 of CPC)
After some arguments learned counsel for the applicant seeks to
withdraw the application.
The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3318/2012
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
versus
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamik Narain, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
19.12.2012
CM No.19871/2012 (for extension of time)
The order qua which extension of time is sought was passed on
01.11.2012. The application has been filed after nearly one and a half
months. There is no acceptable reason given, for me to acquiesce to, the
prayer for extension of time to file an affidavit or to grant an
adjournment.
There is no order of any appellate Court brought to my notice. The
only averment which has been made is that a SLP has been filed on
10.12.2012. No order of the Supreme Court has been brought to my notice.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 19, 2012
yg $ 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
W.P.(C) 3318/2012 and CM Nos. 7059/2012 and 10325/2012 
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv.
versus 
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr Prashant Bhushan, Mr Ramesh
K. Mishra and Mr Samik Narain, Advs. for R-1 with Mr Shailesh Gandhi, R-1
in person. CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R 
10.01.2013 
Mr Gonsalves submits that respondent no.1 had filed a SLP, which
was dismissed as withdrawn; though, the order passed in those proceedings
not been placed before me. The statement, however, is taken on record.
Pursuant to the order of this court, Mr Shailesh Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1 has entered appearance.
Mr Bansal submits, on instructions, that he does not wish to press the writ petition and seeks liberty to withdraw the same.
Mr Gonsalves, on instructions of Mr Shailesh Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1, says that he does not oppose the withdrawal of the
petition. 
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications
are also disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 10, 2013

Pasted from <http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2013/03/thanks-to-chief-justice-of-india-for.html>

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that under R.T.I. Act 2005 ,CPIO can withhold the information under section 8 and 9 of R.T.I. Act 2005 or if sought information is for redressal of grievance .
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
But this information may be available in record of court and can be made available under existing High court rules as accepted by CPIO and will insure transparency and accountability and information seeker is seeking this document on behalf of his father under transparency act.
4- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
5- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
4. Each application shall be accompanied by cash or draft or pay order of Rs. 500/- drawn in favour of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, or the District Judge of the concerned District Court as the case might be.

Pasted from <http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/rti/UttarPradeshShasan3530Dt20-09-2006.html> Undoubtedly  C.P.I.O. High court has compassion with me so he returned the postal orders but in next proceedings ,it will create difficulty for me so Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to cash it. As it is postal orders are annexed with this appeal. Copy of the letter of C.P.I.O. dated 27-March-2014 is annexed with this appeal.
    This is humble request to you Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to pass appropriate order so that copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1Allahabad  be made available to your appellant within prescribed time . If not available even after eight years ,then your appellant may be told that how more time will be taken by director to comply the order of High court. For this your appellant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                    Yours sincerely
                                            Yogi  M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh)
Moh-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.) India  

To direct concerned to entertain my appeal in accordance with
the law. Prayer-Rule 25 &26 of Allahabad High court (Right to
Information)Rules 2006 are ultravires to Right to Information Act 2005 so that
declared to be null &Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public
Information Officer be directed to provide information as sought by information
seeker.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Jun 12 (1 day ago)
    to urgent-action, supremecourt, pmosb, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, hgovup, cmup, csup, secy-cic, ak.dash
An appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of
Right to information Act 2005.
To
      Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners
,Government of India.
Appellant-Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P.
Singh)
Mohalla-Surekapuram ,Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur ,State-Uttar Pradesh ,
Country-India
                              Versus
Respondents-
1-Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public
Information Officer , High court of judicature at Allahabad , Allahabad .
2-Registrar General /First Appellate Authority
under Right to Information Act 2005 ,High court of judicature at Allahabad ,
Allahabad .
Prayer-Rule 25 &26 of Allahabad High court
(Right to Information)Rules 2006 are ultravires to Right to Information Act
2005 so that declared to be null &Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central
Public Information Officer be directed to provide information as sought by
information seeker.
                 Short submissions .
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
according to Registrar General /First Appellate Authority under Right to
Information Act 2005 ,High court of judicature at Allahabad , Allahabad if the
information sought can be obtained under the provisions of Allahabad High court
rules ,1952 ,the CPIO is not liable to provide any information under rule 25 of
Allahabad High court (Right to Information) Rules 2006 .
In next paragraph , Registrar
General mentions- I have gone through the entire material on record and found
that CPIO had rightly rejected the application dated 18.03.2014 of applicant
under the provision as stipulated in rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court
(Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 .Thus ,there is no ground for interference
within the same as made available by CPIO through its letter no. 1466
   308/2014/RTI /AHC: Allahabad
,Dated 09.05.2014 Dispatched on 12.05.2014 and delivered on 16.05.2014 .
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
         Registered post
dated-31-March-2014
An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of
Right to Information Act 2005. 
To
       
Registrar General /First appellate authority ,  High court at Allahabad.
Prayer -Please direct the central public
information officer to made available sought information as your appellant
sought through the RTI communique dated-19.03.2014. Copy is enclosed with this
appeal.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Sought Information.
Please made available the copy of counter
affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad.
If not submitted , how more time will be taken
by Director as he is prime accused in the matter who superseded the order of
High court.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
No. 22 OF 2005
[15th June, 2005.1
An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right
to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control of public authorities,
in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority, the
constitution of a Central
Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
 Whether not to provide sought information on flimsy ground will
bring up transparency and accountability in the working of public authority.
5-It is submitted
before the Hon’ble Sir that 
8. Exemption from
disclosure of information.
(/)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to
give any citizen,
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of
court;
 Hon’ble Sir sought information can be only
denied under section 8 & 9 of Right to Information Act 2005 .
Thanks to chief justice of India for being
instrumental to information seekers .
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
7:27 PM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#58
W. P. (C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …..
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG with Ms.
Maneesha Dhir with Mr. Ritesh
Kumar, Mr. K. P. S. Kohli, Ms. Simranjeet Singh,
Mr. Piyush Sanghi and Mr.
Yashwardhan, Advocates.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS …..
Respondents
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
O R D E R
23.05.2011
CM APPL No. 7380 of 2011 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just
exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W. P. (C) 3530/2011 and CM APPL No. 7379/2011 (for
stay)
3. An important question that arises in the
present writ petition is whether an
application seeking information relating to court
proceedings can be processed
under the Right to Information Act, 2005
notwithstanding that there exist rules
of procedure of the court concerning the
disclosure of such information to the
applicant.
4. Issue notice to Respondent No. 1, returnable on
24th August 2011. Dasti in
addition. Respondents 2 and 3 are formal parties
and no notice need to be issued
to them.
5. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a
stay of the impugned order
of the Central Information Commission (?CIC?). The
CIC will also not proceed
with petitions involving similar questions till a
decision is rendered in the
present writ petition.
6. Order dasti.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 23, 2011
akg
$
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3530/2011
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA …..
Petitioner
Through: Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K.P.S. Kohli, Mr
Abhishek Kumar, Mr D. Ray,
Mr Siddharta Tyagi and Ms Vaneesha Singh, Advs.
versus
RS MISRA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr R.K. Choudhary, Adv. for the
applicant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
22.02.2013
CM No. 2236/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 2235/2013 (O. 1 R. 10 of CPC)
After some arguments learned counsel for the
applicant seeks to
withdraw the application.
The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3318/2012
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
versus
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Shamik Narain, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
19.12.2012
CM No.19871/2012 (for extension of time)
The order qua which extension of time is sought
was passed on
01.11.2012. The application has been filed after
nearly one and a half
months. There is no acceptable reason given, for
me to acquiesce to, the
prayer for extension of time to file an affidavit
or to grant an
adjournment.
There is no order of any appellate Court brought
to my notice. The
only averment which has been made is that a SLP
has been filed on
10.12.2012. No order of the Supreme Court has been
brought to my notice.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 19, 2012
yg $ 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
W.P.(C) 3318/2012 and CM Nos. 7059/2012 and
10325/2012 
AAKASH DEEP CHAKARVARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv.
versus 
SHAILESH GANDHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr
Prashant Bhushan, Mr Ramesh
K. Mishra and Mr Samik Narain, Advs. for R-1 with
Mr Shailesh Gandhi, R-1
in person. CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R 
10.01.2013 
Mr Gonsalves submits that respondent no.1 had
filed a SLP, which
was dismissed as withdrawn; though, the order
passed in those proceedings
not been placed before me. The statement, however,
is taken on record.
Pursuant to the order of this court, Mr Shailesh
Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1 has entered appearance.
Mr Bansal submits, on instructions, that he does
not wish to press the writ petition and seeks liberty to withdraw the same.
Mr Gonsalves, on instructions of Mr Shailesh
Gandhi i.e.,
respondent no.1, says that he does not oppose the
withdrawal of the
petition. 
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All
pending applications
are also disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 10, 2013
Pasted from <http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2014/05/when-registrar-general-dont-know.html>This shows that information sought concerned with the
pending litigation can be provided under Right to Information Act 2005.
 6-It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
22. Act to have overriding effect.The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,
1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act.
 This shows
the supremacy of August act.
 7-It is
submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
28. Power to make rules by competent autbmity.(/) The competent authority may, by
notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this
Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely:
(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials
to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of
section 4;
(ii)the fee payable under sub-section (/) of section 6;
(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (/) of section 7; and
(iv)any other matter which is required to be,
or may be, prescribed. 
Hon’ble
Sir
  rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules
,2006 is prejudice to generality of foregoing power as it makes the provisions
of Right to Information Act 2005 impotent. How the transparency and
accountability can be ensured in judiciary when aforesaid rules 25 &26 are
under effect. This act i.e. rejection of sought information by taking recourse
of rule 25 and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006
shows the tyranny and arbitrariness of competent judicial members as they don’t
advocate transparency and accountability in their functions.
8-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
HELD: Under s.6, an applicant is entitled to get only such
information
which can be accessed by the “public authority” under
any other law for the
time being in force –  If any thing is done contrary to this, it would
certainly affect the Independence of the judiciary – A judge
should be free
to make decisions – As the petitioner has misused the provisions
of the RTI
Act, High Court rightly dismissed his writ petition – Judicial
Officers’
Protection Act, 1850 – Independence of judiciary.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009.
Pasted from <http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2012/05/under-rti-act-2005-citizen-entitled-to.html> Here this question
arises that whether this ruling of apex court is not quoting that whatever
information can be accessed from public authority under any law for time being
in force same information can be sought under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right
to Information Act 2005. How much ridiculous that 
rule 25
and 26 of Allahabad High court (Right to Information ) Rules ,2006 is contrary
to spirit of this judgment but under force because transparency and
accountability is main foe of judicial members working at judicature of High
court at Allahabad . Here this question arises that what is the set up norm in
order to get the information concerned with the compliance of High court order
. Here information seeker is only seeking that after 8 years whether director
secondary education has complied the High court order to submit counter
affidavit and not the view point of judicial member or not trying to get
redress of the grievance. Whether this is not anarchy that director secondary
education didn’t comply the order of High court even after eight years.
Here  CPIO don’t want to inform that Director secondary took under teeth
the direction of High court by overlooking order of High court. As this will
lower the image of court and every will know that what is going on in our
courts.
               This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that
please direct concerned to redress my grievance in accordance with the law. For
this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
               Yours sincerely
               Yogi M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh) ,Mohalla-Surekapuram ,
Jabalpur Road , District-Mirzapur , State-Uttar Pradesh , Country-India
 

4 comments on Why ministry of law and justice sent letter of PMO to secretary department of Higher education instead of High court?

  1. Whether these information would be made available by "The secretary , Department of Higher Education , Ministry of Human Resource Development , Rajendra Prasad Road , Shastri Bhawan ,New Delhi 110001.
    Sought Information.
    Please made available the copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad.
    If not submitted , how more time will be taken by Director as he is prime accused in the matter who superseded the order of High court.

  2. Here matter of the submitted grievance is closely connected with the function judicature of High court at Allahabad. It seems that concerned are not interested in redressing the grievance otherwise ipsofacto obvious that information was sought CPIO High court at Allahabad. How the The secretary , Department of Higher Education , Ministry of Human Resource Development , Rajendra Prasad Road , Shastri Bhawan ,New Delhi 110001. would be instrumental in providing the sought information.

  3. It is true fact that matter was concerned with the Highcourt at Allahabad as ipsofacto obvious but under which circumstances ministry of law and justice forwarded the matter to non-concerned public authority can be explained by them only. It seems that such strategy is the integral part of strategy in order to safeguard constitutional provisions as promises made during election campaign.

  4. The root cause of all evils is deep rooted corruption. This corruption is oriented from topmost of administrative hierarchy to lowermost rank. Earlier public functionaries used to indulge in illegal practices behind the screen but now they are openly demanding the bribe. There are substantial evidences of siphoning of public fund but competent authorities are not taking action and wrongdoers openly saying that we have sent the shares to them. Here protectors of law itself great violators of it. Whether this is good governance. During Dr. Manmohan Singh PMO was more transparent and accountable. At present it doesn't want to pay heed to grievances of common people. In this Government public will soon come on streets. Here intelligentsia class is on the verge of starvation.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: