Your friend challenged the validity of rule 25 and 26 of

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 <https://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2013/12/allahabad-high-court-right-to_14.html>

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 <https://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2014/05/when-registrar-general-dont-know.html>

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 <https://yogimpsingh.blogspot.in/2014/03/an-appeal-submitted-against-denial-of.html>

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 <https://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 <https://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