Case listed for evidence on 30 May 2022 in A.C.J.M. Court number 29 district court Lucknow. Non-compliance of H.C. Dinesh Pratap Singh

Chief Judicial Magistrate

Case Details

Case Type CRI. CASE

Filing Number 4003282/2011  Filing Date 26-04-2011  

Registration Number 4003282/2011 Registration Date 10-09-2013

CNR Number UPLK040047752011   (Note the CNR number for future reference) View QR Code / Cause Title


Case Status

First Hearing Date 13th August 2012

Next Hearing Date 30th May 2022

Case Stage Evidence

Court Number and Judge 29-A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29


Petitioner and Advocate

1) State of Uttar Pradesh

   Advocate- e


Respondent and Advocate

1) DINESH PRATAP SINGH


Acts

Under Act(s) Under Section(s)

INDIAN PENAL CODE 406,420,448


FIR Details

Police Station ASHIYANA

FIR Number

Year 0


Case History


Judge Business on Date Hearing Date Purpose of Hearing

10-09-2013 Appearance

22-12-2012 24-12-2012 For copies

15-02-2013 01-04-2013 For copies

01-04-2013 17-08-2013 Appearance

10-09-2013 22-08-2015 Evidence

13-11-2013 20-12-2013 Evidence

20-12-2013 07-02-2014 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 07-02-2014 13-06-2014 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 13-06-2014 04-09-2014 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 04-09-2014 16-10-2014 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 16-10-2014 05-12-2014 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 05-12-2014 31-01-2015 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 31-01-2015 24-03-2015 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 24-03-2015 22-06-2015 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 22-08-2015 07-10-2015 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 07-10-2015 20-11-2015 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 20-11-2015 20-01-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 20-01-2016 09-03-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 09-03-2016 16-04-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 16-04-2016 31-07-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 31-07-2016 15-09-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 15-09-2016 12-10-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 12-10-2016 15-11-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 15-11-2016 21-12-2016 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 21-12-2016 16-02-2017 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 16-02-2017 27-06-2017 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 27-06-2017 06-09-2017 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 06-09-2017 30-10-2017 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 30-10-2017 01-12-2017 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 01-12-2017 20-02-2018 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 20-02-2018 05-06-2018 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 05-06-2018 06-08-2018 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 06-08-2018 27-10-2018 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 27-10-2018 10-12-2018 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 10-12-2018 09-02-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 09-02-2019 06-04-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 06-04-2019 23-07-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 23-07-2019 03-09-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 03-09-2019 21-10-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 21-10-2019 22-10-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 22-10-2019 29-11-2019 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 29-11-2019 06-02-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 06-02-2020 21-04-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 21-04-2020 14-05-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 14-05-2020 09-06-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 09-06-2020 21-07-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 21-07-2020 07-09-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 07-09-2020 04-11-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 04-11-2020 22-12-2020 Evidence

A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 22-12-2020 15-01-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 15-01-2021 22-03-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 22-03-2021 16-06-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 16-06-2021 09-07-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 09-07-2021 13-09-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 13-09-2021 25-11-2021 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 25-11-2021 07-01-2022 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 07-01-2022 21-03-2022 Evidence

A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29 21-03-2022 30-05-2022 Evidence


Case Transfer Details within Establishment

Registration Number Transfer Date From Court Number and Judge To Court Number and Judge

4003282/2011 21-09-2013 58 - JM-II 40 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26

4003282/2011 03-04-2018 40 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI

4003282/2011 05-01-2021 71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 29 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29


Daily Status
Chief Judicial Magistrate
In the court of :A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29
CNR Number :UPLK040047752011
Case Number :Cri. Case/4003282/2011
State of Uttar Pradesh  versus  DINESH PRATAP SINGH
Date  : 21-03-2022

Business:c
Next Purpose:Evidence
Next Hearing Date:30-05-2022
A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29

District judge Lucknow denied information after taking Rs. 200 as RTI Fee arbitrarily to Dinesh Pratap Singh such is transparency of judiciary

An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 against the denial of information from point 1 to 3 by the central public information officer / Additional district Judge through its representative / agent Human Rights Defender Yogi M. P. Singh/ Mahesh Pratap Singh S/O Rajendra Pratap Singh  whose Aadhar card is attached to this appeal as page 8 of the attached annexures. 

To

                     District Judge Lucknow

                 ADDRESS:- District & Sessions Court Lucknow

           Kaisarbagh;  P.S.-Wazeerganj;

                                          Lucknow-226001 (Uttar Pradesh) India

Prayer-This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the denial of information in the R.T.I. No. -49 /2021 of the appellant Dinesh Pratap Singh S/O Angad Prasad Singh submitted on 18 Nov 2021 ipso facto obvious from the attached document. 
Appellant with due respect invites the kind attention of the First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow to the following points/submissions as follows. 
1-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir following is the subject matter of the R.T.I. Application of the appellant in the matter concerned.  
To seek information regarding the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow. Colour photographs of the communication attached to this RTI Application as first two pages of the attached document. For more information, vide attached annexure 1 and 2.
This implies that information sought regarding the aforementioned communication / representation sent by the appellant which was received in the office of District Judge Lucknow on 16/10/2019. 
Sought Information-Appellant seeks following information point-wise.
1-Please provide notings made by the competent staff of the district court Lucknow on aforementioned representation cum questionnaire.
2-Please provide the current status of the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow.
3-Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system consequently information seeker is seeking reason if communication is not reached to its destination.
2-I pray before the Honourable Sir aforementioned three point information denied by the central public information officer / Additional district Judge court room 1 on the flimsy ground that this information is accessible to him as information sought is in the form of a questionnaire. Whether the aforementioned sought information is in the form of questions. For detail, vide attached pages 2 and 3 of annexures received yesterday by the appellant. 
3-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow is the supervisory body of the district court Lucknow and whatever correspondences are made are addressed to Honourable District Judge Lucknow and under Right to Information Act 2005 whether appellant can not seek information regarding status of the communication of the information seeker dated-13/10/2019 addressed to District Judge Lucknow.
From the speed post tracking, it is quite obvious that communication was dispatched on 13/10/2019 and received in the office of District Judge Lucknow on 16/10/2019.
4-I pray before the Honourable Sir order dated  07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad was bypassed by the Lucknow Development Authority and carried out execution of the registry and also bypassed by Home secretary, commissioner of police Lucknow and Station officer police station Ashiana Lucknow as respondent number 1, 2 and 3. by grabbing the land and house and slapping serious charges on the appellant and his family members and now the same blunder is being committed by your subordinate court bypassing order dated  07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad. 
5-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir whether any communication received by your office is judicial work and concerns the administration undoubtedly not. Processing of my communication from the office of district judge to 
Case Type: Cri. Case
Filing Number: 4003282/2011Filing Date: 26-04-2011
Registration Number: 4003282/2011Registration Date: 10-09-2013
CNR Number: UPLK04-004775-2011

Case Status
First Hearing Date: 13th August 2012
Next Hearing Date: 21st March 2022
Case Stage: Evidence
Court Number and Judge: 29-A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29
Petitioner and Advocate1) State of Uttar Pradesh
    Advocate- e


Respondent and Advocate1) DINESH PRATAP SINGH


Acts
Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
INDIAN PENAL CODE 406,420,448
FIR Details
Police Station: ASHIYANA
Case Transfer Details within Establishment
Registration Number Transfer Date From Court Number
and Judge To Court Number
and Judge
4003282/2011 03-04-2018  40 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.26 71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI
4003282/2011 05-01-2021  71 - A.C.J.M. (A.P.) CBI 29 - A.C.J.M. COURT NO.29
is pure non judicial work. Appellant has sought the information concerning the non judicial work carried out in the office of district judge Lucknow and central public information officer / Additional district Judge illegally withheld the sought information must be taken into account by the First Appellate Authority / Honourable District Judge Lucknow.
6-I pray before the Honourable Sir order dated  07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the staircase so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Respondnt1-Secretary Dept. of home 2-Police commissioner Lucknow 3-SHO police station -Ashiana, 
Moreover, Honourable Justice in its order said that the raised matter is civil and amenable by filing a title suit before the court or authority. 
7-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir in the open court hearing,the administration of justice requires hearing the cases and complaints of the litigants through their legal representatives/advocates and by the Judges in open courts. 'Open courts', refers to proceedings conducted before a court of law in full public view.
It is most surprising that the subordinate court is running away from taking perusal of order dated  07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad and office monitoring body running away from transparency and accountability ipso facto.

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 arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray for you, Hon’ble Sir.

                                                    Yours sincerely

                                   Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911,

Date-23-01-2022                                       On behalf of 

                                    Dinesh Pratap Singh C/O Yogi M. P. Singh 

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Shri Laxmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India


Beerbhadra Singh

To write blogs and applications for the deprived sections who can not raise their voices to stop their human rights violations by corrupt bureaucrats and executives.

1 Comments

Your view points inspire us

  1. I pray before the Honourable Sir order dated 07-03-2006 passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal of Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad It is simply ordered that the respondent number 4 to7 shall open the lock of the staircase so that Smt Anuradha Singh the petitioner may come out of the house and take the proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court and after that, she may have the liberty to go anywhere. Respondnt1-Secretary Dept. of home 2-Police commissioner Lucknow 3-SHO police station -Ashiana,

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post