Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Yogi M. P. Singh

CPIO ,High court of judicature at Allahabad was directed by Hon'ble CIC ,India to provide copy of counter affidavit

Recommended Posts

Yogi M. P. Singh

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh XXXXXXXXXXX

AttachmentsOct 10

 

to cj

To

CPIO, High court of judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar Mishra Registrar (Accounts) High Court, Allahabad

Subject-To provide the copy of the appeal submitted before the Hon'ble chief information commissioner of India .

Hon'ble Sir-Please take the perusal of appeal submitted under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 before CIC and fixed for hearing on 26/10/2015 at 11 AM . Please take a glance of notice of hearing dated-29/09/2015 . This e-mail to Hon'ble Sir as advised by Hon'ble CIC.

Yours sincerely

 

Yogi M. P. Singh

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Subject: 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.

To: urgent-action , supremecourt , pmosb , secypg , ddpg2-arpg , "hgovup@up.nic.in" , cmup , csup , secy-cic@nic.in, ak.dash@nic.in

 

 

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.

 

Pasted from

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.

 

Pasted from

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.

 

Pasted from

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. © 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. © 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.© 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.© 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.© 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 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 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

 

Attachments area

Preview attachment CIC notice to appellant and CPIO High court..pdf

PDF

CIC notice to appellant and CPIO High court..pdf

img373.jpg

img371.jpg

img372.jpg

Edited by RAVEENA_O
Posting Mobile number / email ID on open forum boards not permitted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

yogimpsingh@gmail.comHon'ble Sir please direct central public information officer to comply the order dated 04/11/2015 passed by Hon'ble chief information commissioner of India.

Yogi M. P. Singh

Yogi M. P. Singh

AttachmentsNov 15 (5 days ago)

 

to cj

Hon'ble Sir please direct central public information officer to comply the order dated 04/11/2015 passed by Hon'ble chief information commissioner of India.

15 November 2015

09:47

To

Hon'ble chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad District -Allahabad , Uttar Pradesh

Subject-Request to ensure compliance of order dated -04/11/2015 passed by Hon'ble C.I.C. as consequent of hearing dated -26/10/2015. in appeal CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS.

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 order dated-04/11/2015 passed by Hon'ble C.I.C. Of India is uploaded on the website of central information commission of India of which downloaded copy is attached with this representation. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attached document with this representation.

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

2-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Hon'ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005(it may be 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla) . Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words "Sadharan Vetanman". List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad ( is the necessary party in the matter concerned) 2-Assistant deputy director secondary education working in the of director of secondary education .Allahabad. 3-D.D.R. Mirzapur.4-DIOS Mirzapur. 5-Committee of management R.I.C. Naugaon ,Mirzapur.

3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4, most surprising is that DIOS Mirzapur states in its letter that he had complied the order of court but same was returned back by director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad . But the necessary party in the case ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court dated- 16/04/2004 order passed by Justice Jgadish Bhalla attached with this representation still did not abide by the order of High Court. Hon'ble Sir- Even a common man can understand that order passed in the writ no.20121 of year 2006 is against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by director education Arth-1 Allahabad. Here this question arises that when counter affidavit was not submitted by director ,then how court will ascertain the role of director if he is found guilty of non -compliance the order whether that will require one more writ already five writs filed by petitioner in order to seek justice so that his accountability may be decided. Why director secondary education Arth Allahabad did not comply the direction of High court at Allahabad? DIOS Mirzapur can submit its own submissions not on behalf of respondent 2 and 3 whether view points of DIOS can be view points of respondent 2 and 3. Respondent 2 and 3 still did not submit any counter submissions. Here petioner is aggrieved with the director as he superseded the direction of High court.

 

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

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

 

Ensure compliance of order of Hon'ble C.I.C..pdf

 

 

Created with Microsoft Office OneNote 2007

One place for all your notes and information

Attachments area

Preview attachment Hon'ble Sir please direct centra.one

 

 

Hon'ble Sir please direct centra.oneimg380.jpg

img381.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy