first appeal under rti act 2005 against registrar (j-i) supreme court of india for refusal of...

FILING INDEX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH ……APPELLANT

VERSUS

ADDL. REGISTRAR & CPIO …… RESPONDENT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.N Particulars Pages

1. First Appeal dated 08.03.2017 01-10

2. RTI request dated 02.02.2017 11-11

3. RTI reply by CPIO SC dated

04.03.2017

12-12

4. Communication with Ld.Registrar

Supreme Court of India w.e.f.

24.01.2017 to 02.02.2017

13-20

5. Lodgment Order dated 28.01.2017

by this Hon’ble Court.

21-23

6. Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017

by this Hon’ble Court.

24-26

Appellant in Person

Filed on: 08.03.2017 Om Prakash

Diary No.

(Widow Asha Rani Devi)

On behalf of Appellant No.02

RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG

RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY

NEW DELHI-77, DWARKA SECTOR-08

Date: 08/03/2017

Ref: RTI reply Dy. No. 2522/RTI/16-17/SCI dated

04.03.2017 by Adl. Registrar & CPIO Supreme Court

of India.

From:

Om Prakash Poddar

S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,

New Delhi-10077

Mob: 9968337815

E-mail: [email protected]

To,

The First Appellate Authority

Ld. Registrar (Admin)

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi

Sub: First Appeal under Right to Information Act

2005.

Sir,

I regret that CPIO Supreme Court of India, New

Delhi have supplied the information

unsatisfactorily and misleading. CPIO Supreme

Court of India refused to reply against refusal

of registration of Writ Petition Criminal D.NO.

2188 of 2017 entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION

OF INDIA & ORS” and subsequent abuse of power by

Registrar (J-I) under the provisions of Order XV,

Rules 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in the

garb of no reasonable cause to be received for

registration of Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188

of 2017.

THE INFORMATION HAS NEITHER BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST

THE JUDICIAL ORDER NOR BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST THE

INTERPRETATION OF LAW OF THIS HON’BLE COURT OR OF

ANY OTHER COURT.

THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST THE ABUSE

OF POWER BY THE QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF ORDER XV, RULE 5 OF THE SUPREME

COURT RULES, 2013; AND INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE OF

REASONABLE CAUSE TO PROTECT BAD ELEMENTS OF STATE

APPARATUS.

Matter pertains to imminent danger to Life

and Liberty of a Senior Citizen oxygen

dependent woman therefore information has

been sought in view of section 7(1) of RTI

Act 2005

Hence, either you can supply the information

against SEVEN questions sought pertaining to the

abuse of power under the provisions of Order XV,

Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by the

QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICER, Registrar (J-I), Supreme

Court of India or else you can order him to

supply the same satisfactorily, or supply the

same as per the rules under RTI Act-2005. My

point wise averments and arguments are as under:

Requested Information: 1.)

Is violation of set practice, procedure and rules

against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by the Registry

of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

Handbook of this Hon’ble Court to stop the

petitioner no. 02 to agitate the matter before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court not a

reasonable cause to be received for registration

of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?


Is evasion of Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court

Rules 2013 against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by

two judges bench is not a reasonable cause to be

received for registration of Writ Criminal of

2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?


Is likelihood of bias as laid down in the Yadav

Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 is not a

reasonable cause to be received for registration

of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?


Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-I)

of this Hon’ble Court has disclosed the

petitioner’s claim of relief in the nature of

prohibition or certiorari only while the relief

has been claimed in the nature of Mandamus also?


Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-I)

of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that the

petitioners were afforded liberty to approach

Patna High Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016 while the petitioner had lodged strong

protest against it in the open Court and this

Order suffers from biased and prejudiced judgment

by two judges bench of this Hon’ble Court?


Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-

I) of this Hon’ble Court gives false statement

that the reliefs claimed in the present petition

revolve around the same subject matter which came

to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on

21.10.2016 while previous petition claimed only

two relief whereas the present petition has

claimed nine relief?


Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-

I) of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that

the petitioners are re-agitating the same

petition while the petitioners have been stopped

by the Registry since 03.10.2016 to agitate the

matter at right place before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India’s Court as per the set practice,

procedure and rules of this Hon’ble Court?

Supplied Information: 1 to 7.) You are

Petitioner-in-Person in Writ Petition (Crl.)

D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled “Om Prakash and

Another” Vs “Union of India and Others”.

Information as sought for by you are presumptive

and no information can be provided to that

extent. Further, “It is beyond the jurisdiction

and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of

India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to

interpret the law, judgments/orders of this

Hon’ble Court or of any other Court, to give

explanation, opine, comment or advice on matters.

Your request is not covered under Section 2 (f)

of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot

be acceded to that extent. However, the instant

writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

in-person on 18.01.2017 and the same was placed

before the Ld. Registrar (J-I) on 28.01.2017,

when the Ld. Registrar was pleased to hold that

the present petition is not maintainable and the

same does not disclose any reasonable cause to be

received for registration under the provisions of

Order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,

2013. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are available on

the Supreme Court website and can be

accessed/downloaded therefrom. Further,

Petitioner-in-Person was informed vide Order

dated 28.01.2017 of Ld. Registrar. The same was

delivered by hand to the petitioner-in-person on

02.02.2017.

Argument and reasons for full information:

1. Aggrieved by the Lodgment Order dated

28.01.2017 of this Hon’ble Court, the

appellant has preferred Writ Petition (Crl.)

D.NO. 3913 of 2017 entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR

VS. THE REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA &

ANR” and subsequent lodgment Order dated

16.02.2017, the appellant has moved an appeal

by way of motion against Lodgment Order dated

16.02.2017 which is pending.

2. That the provision of Order XV, Rule 5 of

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 clearly stipulate,

“The Registrar may refuse to receive a

petition on the ground that it discloses no

reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains

scandalous matter but the petitioner may

within fifteen days of the making of such

order, appeal by way of motion, from such

refusal to the Court”.

3. There is fresh/new cause of action which has been arisen by this Hon’ble Court. There has

been intentional ignorance of reasonable

cause by the Ld. Registrar (J-I) of this

Hon’ble Court.

4. The Bad elements of state apparatus from

Delhi and Bihar both are the respondents in

the Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017

entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA

& ORS” while the bad elements of state

apparatus from Bihar only, are the

respondents in the Writ Petition Criminal 136

of 2016 entitled OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. STATE

OF BIHAR & ORS”

-:RESPONDENTS:-

1. Union of India ….RESPONDENT No.01

Through the Cabinet Secretary

Cabinet Secretariat

Rashtrapati Bhawan

New Delhi-110004

2. The Registrar (Misc) ….RESPONDENT No.02

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg, New Delhi

3. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.03

Through Chief Secretary,

Old Secretariat, Patna-800015

4. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.04

High Court,

Through

Hon’ble Registrar General,

Patna High Court

Patna-800028

5. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.05

Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar

Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division

at Begusarai, Bihar

6. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.06

Cum-Legal Remembrancer

Law Department, Government of Bihar

Main Secretariat Patna-800015

7. Shri Praveen Kumar(IDAS).RESPONDENT No.07

Chairman and Managing Director (C&MD),

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,

H.O. Scope Complex, Core-6, 1st Floor

7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

5. There are 9 nine reliefs have been prayed in the Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017

entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA

& ORS” while only 2 reliefs have been prayed

in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016

entitled OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. STATE OF BIHAR

& ORS”

-:PRAYER:-

In the above premises, it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) To issue a writ of prohibition or

Certiorari or other appropriate

writ order or direction directing

respondent No.04 and 05 for

cancellation of N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

against Shri Om Prakash Poddar and

Ms Asha Devi and quashing of the

pending criminal proceedings in

Criminal Case Complaint (P)

No.5591 of 2013 u/s 498A to ensure

life or personal liberty and

freedom of movement across the

Indian Territory by the petitioner

no.01 and 02.

(ii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or

other appropriate writ order or

direction directing respondent

No.04 to issue an order of

dismissal and imprisonment against

the concerned Magistrate and Women

Protection officer for an offence

of perjury and illegal confinement

of the petitioner no.01 and 02.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or


direction directing respondent No.

01 and 03 for enforcement of the

Fundamental Rights under Article

21 to initiate appropriate action

and pass necessary directions to

prevent such incidence of misuse

of Government Machinery against

consistent planting of criminal

conspiracy against the vulnerable

petitioner no.01 and 02 as the

petitioner no.01 has been left

with only one member in his family

now, after an untimely demise of

his father in the similar fashion.

(iv) To issue a writ of prohibition

or other appropriate writ order

or direction directing respondent

No.02 to prevent violation of the

set practice, procedures and rules

as laid down in the Handbook of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

to achieve the UN goal of access

to justice for all.

(v) To issue a writ of mandamus or



No.03 and 06 to issue a dismissal

order against Women Protection

Officer, Ms Veena Kumari and to

cancel the registration no.

836/1991 of her husband Advocate

Gopal kumar registered under Bihar

State Bar Council for an offence

of perjury and to issue an order

against them to pay the amount of

Rs. 50 lakh to the petitioner

no.01 and 02 as a compensation for

causing them irreparable damage,

loss and illegal confinement.

(vi) To issue a writ of mandamus or



No.01 to issue dismissal order

against respondent no.07 for an

offence of perjury.

(vii) To issue a writ of mandamus or



No.07 to pay the amount of Rs. 50

lakh to the petitioner no.01 and

02 as a compensation for keeping

them captive and house arrest

illegally and causing them

irreparable damage and loss.

(viii) To issue a writ of mandamus or



No.01 to issue order of removal

against Legal Aid Advocates from

the empanelment of Legal Aid

Institutions who were associated

with the case of petitioner from

Trial Court to High Court of Delhi

to Supreme Court of India and

eventually for their direct and

indirect denial to render Legal

Aid services to the petitioner.

(ix) To issue a writ of mandamus or



No.01 to bring necessary

amendments in the Constitution and

respective legislations; resulting

out of the interpretation of the

Constitution in this case.

6. The information supplied is absolutely

misleading, besides the information sought

through seven questions which has nothing to

do with the Judicial Order or interpretation

of Law and protecting the bad elements of

state apparatus.

7. Hence, true information to be supplied in

accordance with RTI Act 2005.

8. Appellant falls under below the poverty line Category hence requisite fees not enclosed

with this Second Appeal.

9. The petitioner is filing the present First

Appeal to the First Appellate Authority,

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi to seek

reply against the above noted 7 questions for

refusal of registration and abuse of power

under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by the Ld.

Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble Court; and

intentional ignorance of reasonable cause for

registration of Writ Petition (Crl.) D.NO.

2188 of 2017.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

APPELLANT IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 08.03.2017

(WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI)

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO.02

Encl:

1. RTI request dated 02.02.2017

2. RTI reply by CPIO SC dated 04.03.2017

3. Communication with Ld. Registrar Supreme Court of India w.e.f. 24.01.2017 to

02.02.2017

4. Lodgment Order dated 28.01.2017 by this Hon’ble Court.

5. Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 by this Hon’ble Court.

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Regarding Curative Pet. D.No. 41026/16

1 message

Section X, Supreme Court of India <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:52

PM To: [email protected]

D.NO. 4293/2016/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. January 24, 2017

FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)

TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR

R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG

RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,

PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077

CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ... OF 2016 (D.No. 41026)

IN

REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 825 OF 2016

IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)

OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners

-Vs-

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ...Respondents

http://d.no/

Sir,

With reference to Point No.1 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter

above-mentioned, I am directed to inform you that no action is called for

on your letter dated 16.12.2016 sent via e-mail dated 17.12.2016 as the

writ petition and the review petition have been dismissed on merits by

this Hon'ble Court and the Curative petition has been filed.

With reference to Point No.2 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter

above-mentioned,I am directed to further inform you that the curative

petition above-mentioned is being processed for listing before the Hon'ble

Judge-in-Chambers and you shall be informed about the date of listing in

due course.

Yours faithfully

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)


Attn:The Registrar (Miscellaneous)

1 message

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]> Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:20

PM To: [email protected]

Date: 25.01.2017

To,

The Registrar (Miscellaneous)

Section X


New Delhi

Sub: Reply to your email letter vide diary no.

4293/2016/X dated 24.01.2017 -reg.

Hon’ble Madam,

1. That the petitioner has filed a Writ

Petition Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR

VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS” vide diary

No.2188 dated 18.01.2017 before Hon’ble the

Supreme Court of India.

2. That the petitioner does not give his

consent to list the Curative Petition

Criminal vide diary no.41026 before Hon’ble

Judge-in-Chamber WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR.

ADVOCATE as it violates the guideline laid

down inRupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra

& Anr. Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388

because petitioner has not filed the

Certificate by Sr. Advocate with valid

reason clarified under para 15 of the

same petition.

3. That it is the discretion of Hon’ble

Registrar Misc. either to process or not to

process the same for listing under the

above circumstances on her own risk.

Prayed for urgency accordingly,

Petitioner-In-Person

Om Prakash


RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg

Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony

New Delh-110077

Mob:9968337815

E-mail:[email protected]

mailto:E-mail%[email protected]


Attn:The Registrar Judicial (Section IB)

1 message

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:41

PM To: supremecourt <[email protected]>

To,

The Registrar Judicial

Section IB


New Delhi

Sub: Regarding Notification of defects against diary

No.2188 dated 18.01.2017-reg.

Hon’ble Sir/Madam,

1. That the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition

Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF

INDIA & ORS” vide diary No.2188 dated 18.01.2017

before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India.

2. That the petitioner has not given his consent

through his email letter dated 25.01.2017 in

response to the letter dated 24.01.2017 vide

diary no. 4293/2016/X of Registrar Misc. Section

X to list the Curative Petition Criminal vide

diary no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber

WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR. ADVOCATE as it

violates the guideline laid down in Rupa Ashok

Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr. Reported in

(2002) 4 SCC 388 because petitioner has not

filed the Certificate by Sr. Advocate with

valid reason clarified under para 15 of the

same petition.

3. That the matter pertains to imminent

danger to the life and liberty of a Senior

Citizen Oxygen dependent Women as well as an

offence of perjury committed by the Lower

Court.

4. That the petitioner is trying to mention

the matter before Hon’ble the Chief justice

of India’s Court since 03.10.2016 but being

stopped by the Registry of this Hon’ble

Court.

5. That this happens to be the last resort

under the legal remedy before COURT OF LAW

for the petitioner. As this is a 12 years

long matter.

6. That the notification of defects has been

delayed by the normal time by Section IB.

7. That the petitioner is praying for urgent

notification of defects so that the matter

could be listed urgently and eventually

could be mentioned urgently for urgent

relief.

Prayed for urgency accordingly,

Filed on: 31.01.2017 OM PRAKASH

New Delhi: PETITIONER IN PERSON


RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg

Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony

New Delh-110077

Mob:9968337815

E-mail:[email protected]


Letter regarding lodgement of W.P.(C) D.No. 2188/17

1 message

Section X, Supreme Court of India <[email protected]> Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:14

AM To: [email protected]

D.NO. 501/2017/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. February 1, 2017

FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)

TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR

R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG

RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,

mailto:E-mail%[email protected]

http://d.no/

PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ... OF 2017 (D.No. 2188)

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)

OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners

-Vs-

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents

Sir,

With reference to the writ petition above-mentioned filed by

you on 18.01.2016, I am to inform you that the same was

placed before Ld. Registrar(J-I) on 28.01.2017, when the Ld.

Registrar was pleased to hold that the present writ petition

is not maintainable and the same does not disclose any

reasonable cause to be received for registration under Order

XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Photocopy of

the Order is enclosed herewith.

This is for your information.

Yours faithfully

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)

LODGMENT ORDER DATED 28.01.2017 & 16.02.2017