Why public authority High court of judicature not providing sought information despite order of commission?

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Most surprising is that High court of judicature itself through its CPIO procrastinating on the direction of CIC on flimsy ground.
3 messages
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 5 December 2015 at 21:14
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cj <cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, dhirendra.k@nic.in, secy-cic <secy-cic@nic.in>

To,
                                                          Sh. Dhirendra Kumar
                                                            Deputy Registrar,
                                             The Central Information Commission.
                                                       Second Floor. ‘B Wing,
                                                       August Kranti Bhawan,
                                                               Bhikaji Cama Place,
                                                          New Delhi – 110066
Subject- CPIO High court of Judicature at Allahabad is seeking to fix another date for the hearing enabling him to submit his side in the matter disposed by central information commission on 04/11/2015 by passing the order in favour of appellant.
Prayer-Before passing order of rehearing in the aforesaid disposed of matter, as required by law your applicant be provided appropriate opportunity to be heard.
Date, events and pages of the submission is as follows.
1-Hard copy of submission made to you Hon’ble Sir on 02-Dec-2015 at 9:41 PM through e-mail from page2 to page5.
2-Hard copy of submission made to Hon’ble chief justice of High court judicature at Allahabad by addressing its CPIO on 10-Oct-2010 at 12:34 AM through e-mail is page-6.
3-Copy of order passed by Hon’ble central information commission on 04-Nov-2015 and consequently disposed the appeal No.CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS from page-7 to page-8.
4-Letter of CPIO dated-27/11/2015 seeking rehearing after disposal of case No.CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS by CIC on flimsy/false/clinching forged ground received by your applicant on 02-Dec-2015 at 2:30-PM  page-9.
5-Letter of office of postmaster general, Allahabad 211001 revealing your applicant’s registered letter no. RU115570899IN delivered on 21-Oct-2015 to CPIO page-10.
6-Submission of your applicant in order to get compliance of the order of CIC dated-04/11/2015 before chief justice, High court of Judicature at Allahabad through e-mail on 15-Nov-2015 and its hard copy was sent on 20/11/2015 through speed registered post page-11 to page-12.
7-Aforesaid speed post received by public authority on 26/11/2015 page-13.
8-Order of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad passed on 13/04/2006 in the writ No.20121 of the year 2006 still awaiting compliance on the part of Director secondary education arth-1 Allahabad (necessary party in the writ) page-14.
9- Order of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad passed on 16/04/2004 in the writ No.1980 of the year 1991, in order to get compliance of this order three successive writs were filed including aforesaid one,page-15.
                   This is a humble request of your applicant that raised matter needs due attention in order to curb miscarriage of justice as in the disposed of matter, CPIO is seeking rehearing which is against the principle of natural justice. Here this question arises that if a case is disposed and the verdict is delivered whether same authority who delivered judgement can recall its order and revive the case? Hon’ble Sir be pleased to scrutinize the matter raised by CPIO on the ground of law that whether jurisprudence allows it instead of touching the disposed of matter. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir. Your applicant expects that he will be provided appropriate opportunity to be heard on the matter concerned.
Date-5-Dec-2015                                                                     Yours sincerely
                                                                                               Yogi M. P. Singh 
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India Mobile no.7379105911


Ensure compliance of order of Hon’ble C.I.C..pdf
1104K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 7 May 2017 at 23:03
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cj <cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, dhirendra.k@nic.in, secy-cic <secy-cic@nic.in>

Subject-Diary Number-601348, Diary date-08-03-2017 communication dated-28-03-2017 by central information commission through its Deputy Registrar, central registry.  
With great respect to revered Sir , your applicant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of first page of attached PDF documents with this representation. Through this communication, registry of R.T.I. ombudsman raised certain objections and expected to get removed through your applicant. 
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that second and third page of these attached PDF documents explicitly showing that complaint copy in 15 pages served to CPIO ,High court of judicature at Allahabad which was delivered in the office of High court of judicature on 17-12-2015 ipso facto obvious. 
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that fourth and fifth page of these attached PDF documents explicitly showing that complaint in 14 pages sent to Sh Dhirendra Kumar , Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, second floor B-wing , August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji cama Place , New Delhi 110066 which was delivered in the office of central information commission on  07-12-2015ipso facto obvious. 
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Deputy Registrar must know that appeal before commission is submitted under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 which requires the obligation obligation of so many as sought but this communication is complaint under section 18 of Right to Information Act 2005 in order to get compliance of order passed by central information commission on 04-11-2015 which is still awaiting compliance by the CPIO High court of judicature at Allahabad.  
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that complaint received by the registry through Deputy Registrar, Dhirendra Kumar on 07-12-2015 contains each pages well signed and complaint is well indexed. Since the case has passed through the stage of second appeal so need not conform to set up norms of second appeal.   
[Quoted text hidden]


Ensure compliance of order of Hon’ble C.I.C..pdf
1271K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 26 July 2017 at 18:45
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cj <cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>, “dhirendra.k@nic.in” <dhirendra.k@nic.in>, secy-cic <secy-cic@nic.in>

Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to following submissions as follows.

1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that following order was passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India but it is unfortunate that CPIO, High court of Judicature at Allahabad still not complied the order. 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd 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 the copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad.   The PIO responded on 27.3.2014.     The appellant filed the first appeal  dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority.  The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed the 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 the counter affidavit of 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, the 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   
                                 (Dhirendra Kumar)             Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar  
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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.

3-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 the public authority, High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance at attached documents with this representation.
4-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 an assault on the 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 face of the Sphinx.

This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. 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, Pin code-231001.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the 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
(Dhirendra Kumar) Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar

Arun Pratap Singh
3 years ago

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.

beautiful images
10 months ago

From the description of the provided information of the Central Public Information Officer of the Lucknow bench of High Court of judicature at Allahabad it is quite obvious that no action is taken on the representations of the public submitted before the the judiciary I know at some has been taken by the concerned staff of the high court and these representations as they have only forwarded the matter to the concerned mandate. Whether such insensitive Judiciary can deliver justice to the weaker and Downtrodden section in this largest democracy in the world even when there is deep rooted corruption in the judiciary?