RTI dated 22.04.2018 against Department of Justice

RTI in view of section 7(1) of RTI Act
Page 1 of 20
IN VIEW OF SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT
Ref: RTI reply memo No. 438 dated 27.08.2016 by C.J.M
Cum- PIO & FAA reply memo no.4036 dated 20.09.2017 by
District & Session Judge-Cum-Appellate Authority,
Civil Courts, Begusarai under the judicature of Patna
High Court
From:
Om Prakash
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-10077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
To,
The CPIO,
Department of Justice
Ministry of Law & Justice
Government of India
New Delhi
Sub: Information seeking under RTI Act 2005.
Sir/Madam,
I thank to District and Sessions Judge-cum Appellate
Authority, Civil Courts, Begusarai, Bihar under the
judicature of Patna High Court for replying back the
First Appeal after an order/decision passed by CIC on
08.09.2017.
However, he has supplied back incomplete information.

Page 2 of 20
Since matter is same and jurisdictions of two states
are involved into it and the same matter has been
settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
MATT.APPL. 7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 therefore
Department of Justice is the competent authority to
supply complete information.
After winning from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
approaching to High Court of other state for the same
cause of action and for same relief is
unconstitutional.
Jurisdiction of Appellant No.01 is Delhi and
jurisdiction of Appellant No.02 is Bihar and the
matter is directly connected to Appellant No.01.
First cause of action arose in Delhi and being
settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi therefore
the same case is not maintainable against the same
cause of action in the state of Bihar. Corrupt
Magistrate has deliberately dragged Appellant No.02
into this matter evading the Rule of Law of the Land
and violating the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India which have been laid down in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in Cr. APP No. 1277 of
2014 for his/her own vested interest.
RTI has been routed through Department of Justice,
Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India
therefore Department of Justice is an appropriate
institution to deal with it.
Moreover, Department of Justice is the competent
authority to deal with the subject matter of two
states jurisdictions arising out of same cause of
action and for same relief which is also linked with

Page 3 of 20
CIC decision on CIC/SS/A/2013/901846-SA dated
25.09.2014
Matter pertains to imminent danger to “life &
liberty” and N.B.W. has been issued and kept it
secret since 08.09.2011 against which Writ Petition.
(CRIMINAL) 136 of 2016; Writ Petition (CRIMINAL)
NO....OF 2017 (D.NO.2188); Miscellaneous Application
(CRIMINAL) 84 OF 2017 & D.NO.17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017
have been filed before Supreme Court of India and
appellant no.02 Smt. Asha Rani Devi has been
succumbed to planned judicial murder on 11.11.2017 at
New Delhi and appellant no.01 Shri Om Prakash has
been forced to become underground due to imminent
danger to his “life & liberty”. Shielded Magistrate
Ms. Meena kumari court no.16 Begusarai Court,
under Supreme Court of India dared to extend next
date of hearing in non-maintainable, false and
frivolous Case No.5591 of 2013 on 27.04.2018.
Under these above circumstances, either you can give
it or else you can order him or her to supply the
same.
Hence, I request you to pass an order to supply the
following Information 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.) Why notice of appearance
not being served on the accused within two weeks from
the date of institutions of case on 07.02.2011??
Supplied Information: 1.) Case No. 397C/2011, CIS
Reg. No. 5511/13 has been filed on 07.03.2011 in the
Court of learned C.J.M, Begusarai, which was
registered on the same day and order has been passed

Page 4 of 20
to transfer the case record to the Court of learned
S.D.J.M, Begusarai for inquiry and disposal. S.A. of
Complainant Kumari Reena was recorded on 17.03.2011.
One inquiry witness Surendra Poddar was examined on
16.04.2011 and on 7.5.11 another inquiry witness Anil
Poddar was examined and evidence of inquiry was
closed on 7.5.2011 on the prayer of the Complainant
and fixed for hearing on 26.5.2011 and learned lawyer
for the Complainant was heard and the case was fixed
for order on 16.7.2011. On 16.7.2011 order was passed
and case was made out for the offence u/s 498(A),
323, I.P.C and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Accordingly, named accused persons were summoned and
Complainant was directed to furnish requisites of
notice. Complainant has filed requisites on 29.7.2011
which was issued on 30.7.2011. Due to non-appearance
of accuse persons, order for issuance of W/A(NB) has
been passed on 08.09.2011 which was complied on
31.1.2013 and till 20.6.2014 neither accused persons
appeared nor E/R of W/A(NB) has been received back.
On 16.9.2014 order for issuance of proclamation
against accused persons u/s 82 Cr.Pc. has been passed
which was issued on 14.10.2014. Due to non-appearance
of accused persons order for issuance for process u/s
83 Cr.Pc. has been passed to secure their attendance
which was carried on 16.8.16 till now, neither
accused persons appeared nor E/R of process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. has been received.
Petitioner of R.T.I petition who is also one of the
accused in the instant case wants to know that notice
for appearance not being served within two weeks from
the date of institution of case. In this regard, it
is crystal clear that more than two weeks time have
been consumed during date of filing of/complaint case
and order by which the case has been made out.
Requisites of notice/summons have been filed on

Page 5 of 20
behalf of the Complainant on 29.7.2011 which was
issued on the very next day and W/A(NB), Proclamation
u/s 82 Cr.Pc. and process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. have been
passed on sufficient intervals but no one appeared in
the case till now.
In Complaint case there is no provision to serve
notice to the accused persons within two weeks from
the date of institution of case, rather the provision
is, to serve notice to the accused after passing
order by the Court for issuance of summons after
completion of inquiry in the proceeding.
Argument and reasons for full information:
As per the RTI application dated 28.05.2016, the
applicant has sought as to why notice is not being
served to the accused within two weeks of institution
of case till date and information has been supplied
“Complainant has filed requisites on 29.7.2011 which
was issued on 30.7.2011. Due to non-appearance of
accuse persons, order for issuance of W/A(NB) has
been passed on 08.09.2011 which was complied on
31.1.2013 and till 20.6.2014 neither accused persons
appeared nor E/R of W/A(NB) has been received back”.
However, FAA does not disclose whether the accused
received the notice after issuance of Notice on
30.7.2011 by the court. Without receiving notice how
can an accuse appear before the court?
Further, FAA informs that “on 16.9.2014 order for
issuance of proclamation against accused persons u/s
82 Cr.Pc. has been passed which was issued on
14.10.2014. Due to non-appearance of accused persons
order for issuance for process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been

Page 6 of 20
passed to secure their attendance which was carried
on 16.8.16 till now, neither accused persons appeared
nor E/R of process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been received”.
However, FAA does not disclose on which newspaper and
on which date and place proclamation was published
against the accused person by the court or whether
the accused person received the notice of
proclamation which was claimed to be published
against accused persons u/s 82 Cr.Pc on 14.10.2014 by
the court.
Since FAA admits for the first time the correlation
of Case No. 9P of 2010 and 5591 of 2013. The
residential address of accused and proceedings of
Dwarka Court are already on the record of Case No. 9P
of 2010 which is the admitted fact by FAA.
Proclamation notice is issued against absconder
whereas; in this case accused is not absconder
because accused has supplied the proceedings and
orders of Trail court at Dwarka Court at New Delhi
wherein the complainant has appeared on 09.02.2011.
So the notice of proclamation is not maintainable in
this case. Moreover, Complainant is in receipt of
NOTICE of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as well. FAA
does not disclose whether the notice was served to
the accused as per the filed record before the court
or as per the record of receipt of notice of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi by the complainant or notice was
not received by an accused or notice was refused to
receive by an accused. If proclamation notice was
published as claimed by FAA then supply the clipping
of the same. Since accused have been visiting their
own house every year on the occasion of Durga Puja
till 2015 and not in receipt of proclamation notice
publicly read in some conspicuous place of their
village named Sonaili. Proclamation notice has not

Page 7 of 20
been found affixed to some conspicuous part of the
accused house or home-stead where accused reside.
However, accused have been in receipt of some posters
of “Toilet for male and female” pasted at the entry
gate of their house w.e.f. 28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016
when the accused was at New Delhi and the same has
been informed by some villagers along with material
evidence through WhatsApp. Online police complaint
vide 99999-0303160113 through BPGRS has been made by
the accused against it with Bihar Government. S.P.
Katihar and D.S.P Barsoi have submitted false police
inquiry report to Janta Darbar Cell, Police HQ,
Patna, Bihar on 07.05.2016. Rejoinder with material
evidence have been filed by the accused before Bihar
Government vide 99999-1705160125 & 99999-1705160126
dated 17.05.2016 and the same is pending before S.P.
Katihar since then. Without receiving proclamation
notice how can an accused appear before the court and
respond to the court? How can a court consider an
accused as absconder?
The information supplied is incomplete. Hence, true
information to be supplied.
Requested Information: 2.) Why Magistrate did not
order of arrest of the accused since 5 years from the
institutions of case on 07.02.2011 to till date?
Supplied Information: 2.)
Order of issuance of W/A(NB) was passed on 08.09.2011
and order for issuance for issuance of proclamation
u/s 82 Cr.Pc. and process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. have been
passed on sufficient intervals. W/A(NB) is itself
order of arrest. Accused persons neither surrendered
suo-moto nor brought by the Police as yet.

Page 8 of 20
Argument and reasons for full information: Here also
the furnished information is besides the information
sought. Applicant is seeking information about arrest
of the accused and information is supplied for the
“issuance of proclamation u/s 82 Cr.Pc. and process
u/s 83 Cr.Pc. have been passed on sufficient
intervals. W/A(NB) is itself order of arrest. Accused
persons neither surrendered suo-moto nor brought by
the Police as yet”.
Surrendering before the corrupt Magistrate without
receipt of notice or notice of proclamation is
unconstitutional and against the Rule of Law of the
land. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
not directed the appellant to join or appear before
the S.D.J.M. Court Begusarai in Writ Petition
(Criminal) 136 of 2016. Hon’ble Supreme Court India
has written in its order dated 21.10.2016,
“Petitioner is at liberty to approach the High
Court”. That order too is under challenge because it
violates Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rule 2013.
Appellants have been imposed liberty by the two
judges’ bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
without passing speaking order violating Order
XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rule 2013. Appellants pledge
never to approach Hon’ble Patna High Court for this
particular matter because it violates constitution of
India. Hence, the question of suo-moto surrender does
not arise. Execute your order, seize/auction property
of the accused and arrest the accused legally.
Appellants assure you in “letter and spirit” that
they will never move an application for Anticipatory
Bail either before Hon’ble Patna High Court or before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against it. Why
police has not executed the order of Magistrate as on
date is a matter of concern for corrupt Magistrate?
Why attendance of an accused has not been secured by

Page 9 of 20
the corrupt Magistrate till date? Why neither the
property has been seized u/s 83 Cr.Pc. by the court
nor has the accused been arrested by the police as
yet? How long magistrate can keep the order without
execution as per the Rule of Law of the Land?
Hence, the information supplied is incomplete and
false. Hence, true information to be furnished in
line with the sought information.
Requested Information: 3.) Why accused not being
charge-sheeted since 5 years from the institution of
case on 07.02.2011 to till date?
In Cr.Pc. there is two forum for victim to law put in
motion in which first is to file F.I.R before Police
and second is to file Complaint case before
Magistrate. In the instant matter, complaint filed
Complaint case so question does not arise to submit
charge sheet as case never put forward as per
provision of Cr.Pc. before Police to investigate the
matter.
Argument and reasons for full information: No
argument hence no comment.
Requested Information: 4.) Why did the first hearing
has been fixed on 05.12.2013 after Two and half years
of institution of the case on 07.02.2011?
Applicant under R.T.I is husband of Complainant, he
is still evading her appearance by filing so many
petition under different provisions of law to
frustrate the object of justice by evading his
appearance. Pendency of case in complaint case

Page 10 of 20
depends upon, firstly to full fill the requirement of
law from the side of complainant. In the instant case
after closing of inquiry case was fixed on 26.5.2011
for hearing which is proper. Question sought by
applicant is not clear and shows that applicant has
not come with clean hand.
Argument and reasons for full information: Appellants
are not evading their appearance by filing so many
petitions under different provisions of law but
ensuring punishment for the corrupt Magistrate.
Appellants are rightly filing various Writ Petition
Criminals under the suitable/fitting legal recourse
against the corrupt organs of State and Central
Governments who are indulged in the offence of
affecting the administration of Justice delivered by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 2013, evading rule
of law of the land for their own vested interest.
C.J.M is evading the Rule of Law by registering Case
No. 9P of 2010 on 31.03.2010 under domestic violence
Act and Case no. 5591 of 2013 under 498A on
07.02.2011 and continuing the proceedings of both the
cases simultaneously even after on record replication
filed by the accused on 03.03.2011. C.J.M has
affected the administration of justice delivered by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MATT.APPL. 7 of
2012 which has resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice. Criminal complaint u/s 340 of Cr.Pc. and
Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 have been filed
against C.J.M Begusarai and the Registrar General of
Hon’ble Patna High Court before Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India against this offence.
Appellant has also sought imprisonment of Magistrate
& Women Protection Officer for an offence of perjury

Page 11 of 20
and illegal confinement of appellants and sought
Rs.50 Lakh as compensation for causing irreparable
damage and loss to the Appellants in Writ Petition
(Criminal) D.NO. 2188 of 2017 filed before Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
Question sought by applicant is absolutely clear that
the case data supplied by S.O. Begusarai Court on
01.03.2016 and case data available at the e-court
website in public domain are evident of this fact
that the first date of hearing has been fixed on
05.12.2013 in Case No. 5591 of 2013. Either available
data in public domain has been manipulated by the
order of Magistrate or Magistrate has manipulated the
case file data taking handsome bribe from the
complainant. It shows that Magistrate has not come
with clean hand.
Hence, true information to be supplied against the
mismatch of the case data.
Requested Information: 5.) Why Ld. district Court
Begusarai supplied the information against case no.
5591 of 2013 while the information was sought by the
petitioner against the case no. 9P/2010?
Supplied Information: 5.) Case No. 9P/2010 was
instituted on 31.03.2010 in the Court of learned
C.J.M, Begusari, on the petition and prayer of
protection officer of Mahila Helpline, Begusari, at
the instance of petition dated, 30.03.2010 filed by
one Kumari Reena, for he offence under Domestic
Violence Act, Learned C.J.M, Begusarai has taken
cognizance on the same day and transfer the case to
the Court of Shri Atul Kumar Pathak, J.M. 1st
Class,
Begusarai and the case proceeded further in his

Page 12 of 20
court, both the cases are correlated with each other
hence supplied the information.
Argument and reasons for full information: No
argument hence no comment because correlations of
both the cases have been admitted and established by
FAA for the first time.
Requested Information: 6.) What is the Correlation
between case no. 9P of 2010 and case no. 5591 of
2013?
Supplied Information: 6.) Case No. 9-p/2010 was
instituted on the prayer of Kumari Reena against Om
Prakash Poddar for he Domestic Violence Act and case
No. 397C/2011 (5591/13) is also filed by Kumari Reena
against the same person, namely Om Prakash Poddar,
which was made out for the offence u/s 498A, 323,
I.P.C and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Co-relation
between case No. 9-P/2010 and case No. 5591/2013, the
reason best known to the parties concerned.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO & FAA both have admitted this fact and shown
their inability to answer this question; hence you
are requested to supply this information on the
ground of placed court records and the Rule of Law of
the Land. As per the Rule of Law of the Land, both
the cases are not maintainable wherein the
Complainant has already joined the proceedings of
H.M.A 700 of 2010 before Trial Court at Dwarka Court
at New Delhi on 09.02.2011 and decided not to contest
it further on her own but to contest it through
proxy/Judges wherein the record of same proceedings
have been intimated to the C.J.M Begusarai through
Affidavit on 03.03.2011 in Case No. 9P of 2010. The
same has been recorded in the Judgment of Hon’ble

Page 13 of 20
High Court of Delhi in MATT.APPL. 7 of 2012 and has
been placed on record with CIC on 30.08.2017 as
written submission against hearing of
F.NO.CIC/MOLAJ/C/2016/299945 on 08.09.2017.
Hence, the reason of registration/institution of two
criminal cases simultaneously and correlations
between them are best known to the concerned C.J.M.
Begusarai. Registration OR institution of cases in
the court are the job of C.J.M and not the job of
parties concerned. Hence, true information to be
supplied against the maintainability of both the
cases under the given circumstances as per the Rule
of Law of the Land.
take the cognizance of replication and cancellation
of NBW filed by the petitioner against the case no.9P
of 2010 through his advocate on 03.03.2011 where it
has been clearly mentioned that the complainant has
appeared before the Ld. Trial Court in case no. HMA
700 of 2010 at New Delhi and has intentionally
concealed this material fact from this Court?
Supplied Information: 7.) On perusal of case record
9-P/2010, it appears that order for issuance of
W/A(B) was passed on 14.07.2010 and order of issuance
of W/A(NB) was passed on 25.08.2010. Order of
issuance W/A(NB) has been passed on the fresh address
of the accused.
As per order sheet dated, 04.04.2011 for the first
time photo copies of papers along with Wakalatnama
has been filed on behalf of opposite party which was
kept on record. As per order sheet it appears that
neither opposite party himself nor his lawyer

Page 14 of 20
appeared and never pressed his petition filed on
04.04.2011 and on subsequent dates opposite party
have also not taken any steps so no any order was
passed on his petition on 04.04.2011.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
FAA has supplied absolutely false and frivolous
information that opposite party has filed his
petition on 04.04.2011. However, as per the court
record, opposite party has filed on 03.03.2011 and he
himself was physically present at the time of filing
of the replication before C.J.M Court on 03.03.2011.
He himself has filed his application for cancellation
of NBW dated 25.08.2010 and replication along with
Affidavit at Ld. C.J.M Court Begusarai at 12.30 PM
duly signed by him and his signature being verified
by his Advocate before the Court officials of C.J.M
Court and the same signature being taken on the
register available at Ld. C.J.M Court on 03.03.2011
by the C.J.M Court’s officials in case no. 9P of 2010
and pressed his petition before the Magistrate on
04.04.2011 through his Ld. Advocate.
Further, FAA informs that “as per the order sheet it
appears that neither opposite party himself nor his
lawyer appeared and never pressed his petition filed
on 04.04.2011 and on subsequent dates opposite party
have also not taken any steps so no any order was
passed on his petition on 04.04.2011”; which is
absolutely false as per the court record and order
dated 04.04.2011. Ld. Advocate, (Mr. Arun Kumar Singh
vide Reg. No. 6255/95) of opposite party has pressed
the petition on 04.04.2011 before the Court of Shri
Atul Kumar Pathak, 1st
Class Judicial Magistrate,
hence the order was issued by the Ld. Magistrate,
“Court officials should examine it without any delay

Page 15 of 20
and make it seen to the advocate of Complainant
without any delay”.
Moreover case no. 9P of 2010 is not pending and
closed as per the information supplied by PIO.
Hence, the information supplied is misleading, false
and frivolous and breeding point of corruption. It
clearly shows that Ld. C.J.M court has deliberately
refused to take the cognizance of replication and
cancellation of NBW filed by the opposite party in
case no.9P of 2010 through his advocate on 03.03.2011
where it has been clearly mentioned that the
complainant has appeared before the Ld. Trial Court
in case no. HMA 700 of 2010 at New Delhi and has
intentionally concealed this material fact from this
Court. It also clearly shows that Ld. C.J.M court has
deliberately registered 498A (which was not
maintainable as per law) even after on record
intimation of H.M.A 700 of 2010 pending at Dwarka
Court at New Delhi. Ld. C.J.M court has evaded the
Rule of Law and violated the Constitution of India to
frustrate the object of justice deliberately for
his/her own vested interest(monetary as well as some
other vested interest). Hence, true information to
be given in line with the information sought.
order or direct the complainant to pursue the HMA-700
of 2010 where she has already appeared on 09.02.2011
at New Delhi because the jurisdiction of case falls
within South West district of Delhi?
Supplied Information: 8.) The trial Court is duty
bond to consider the matter only which is pending

Page 16 of 20
before his court for adjudication of the case, not
for party or representative either of information or
accused. Duty only cast at the parties or his lawyer
to intimate and proceed in accordance with law.
Argument and reasons for full information: FAA has
admitted that “Duty only cast at the parties or his
lawyer to intimate and proceed in accordance with
law” but failed to discharge his duty to take the
cognizance of replication of the opposite party
because the opposite party did not give him handsome
bribe. Nevertheless, Magistrate has been intimated by
the opposite party himself on 03.03.2011 and through
his Advocate on 04.04.2011 to proceed in accordance
with law yet Magistrate did not proceed in accordance
with law due to handsome bribe taken by the
Complainant.
Hence, registered and continued the proceedings of
the non-maintainable case against the rule of law.
Magistrates have abused the duty of court for their
own vested interest.
As per the rule of law of the land,
petitioner/complainant has to furnish
undertakings/declaration that no cases have been
filed by him or her or pending against him or her in
any other courts or before this court for this cause
of action. However, in this case this was
deliberately evaded by C.J.M & Magistrate Begusarai.
C.J.M deliberately registered the case no. 5591 of
2013 even after knowing the fact that Case no. 9P of
2010 is pending before the same C.J.M division and
H.M.A NO. 700 of 2010 are pending before the Dwarka
Court at New Delhi for the same cause of action.

Page 17 of 20
Hence, true information to be supplied as to why
Magistrate has abused the duty of the court by
maintaining and continuing non-maintainable case
secretly under his jurisdiction even after due
intimation by the accused and without execution of
his own order till date evading the Rule of Law of
the Land?
Requested Information: 9.) Why no FIR, no written
statement (WS) by the client of women protection
officer before the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi, no
appearance by the client of women protection officer
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi yet frivolous
criminal cases are continuing for the same cause of
action in another state even after the settlement by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case no. MAT. APPL
7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013?
Supplied Information: 9.) The role of court is very
limited to the extent of relief sought by the
parties. Court cannot advice any of the parties
because role of court is only to adjudicate the
justice in the ambit of litigant interest because
litigant interest is supreme. Taking interest in any
party regarding to advice is beyond the jurisdiction
of the court.
It is important to note here that the RTI is meant
for getting information from the Department concerned
about the real fact of any question not to make
question from the authority that under what
circumstances the court did something or not and why
not? The conduct of petitioner of RTI and situation
discloses that petitioner is husband and accused in
the case filed by his wife. He is aware with the fact
fully and being an accused he has not appeared in
court in the case as yet and only to harass the

Page 18 of 20
complainant and to frustrate the object of Justice he
has filed such RTI, which is not a true sense of RTI.
The answer provided to him by the court below is
complete but the petitioner only with a view to waste
the Judicial time of the court filed this appeal in
RTI. From the report, it is, clear that the date of
institution of complaint case is 07.03.2011 but in
spite of that petitioner wants answer from the date
07.02.11 for which not answer can be provided to him.
Argument and reasons for full information: Ld. FAA
has directly refused to answer from the date
07.02.2011 and has shown his inability that answer
cannot be provided to the accused from 07.02.2011.
The date of filing of case is clearly mentioned
07.02.2011 in the supplied case data by the S.O.
Begusarai Court dated 01.03.2016 and available case
data at the e-court website in the public domain.
However, Ld. FAA has admitted the evasion of Rule of
Law indirectly by his own statement, “role of court
is only to adjudicate the justice in the ambit of
litigant interest because litigant interest is
supreme”. However, as per the rule of law of the land
constitutional priority is supreme and role of court
is to give constitutional priority and not to give
litigant priority. Litigant interest is meaningless
before constitutional interest. Hence, the Magistrate
has ignored the constitutional priority and violated
the principles of resjudicata by way of adjudicating
the non-maintainable case under his jurisdiction with
criminal intension to murder the framed accused and
to affect the administration of Justice delivered

Page 19 of 20
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MATT. APPL. 7 of
2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the appellants.
It is important to note here that the basic object of
the Right to Information Act is to empower the
citizens, promote transparency and accountability in
the working of the Government, contain corruption,
and make our democracy work for the people in real
sense. It goes without saying that an informed
citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on
the instruments of governance and make the government
more accountable to the governed.
So the appellant has filed RTI in true sense to
expose the inbuilt corruption under C.J.M division
Begusarai. Appellants are fully aware with the fact
that the corrupt C.J.M & Magistrate have framed them
as an accused taking handsome bribe from the
complainant and appellant has not appeared before the
corrupt Magistrate as yet just to ensure punishment
for the corrupt Magistrate before the Court of Law of
the Land. As one spoiled tomato makes other fresh and
healthy tomatoes spoiled in the basket. So removal of
spoiled tomato from the basket becomes essential to
protect other fresh and healthy tomatoes to be
remained fresh and healthy. Likewise, one corrupt
Magistrate makes other honest Magistrate corrupt and
thus vitiates the whole environment of pious judicial
system. Therefore removal of corrupt Magistrate
becomes essential to strengthen the pious judicial
system to ensure the access to justice for all.
The answer provided to the appellant by the court
below was false, frivolous and incomplete. Appellant

Page 20 of 20
had filed first appeal for getting true and complete
information and not with a view to waste the judicial
time of the court. C.J.M has registered and
Magistrate has continued the non-maintainable case to
waste the precious time & money of public as well as
judicial time of the court.
Hence, the information supplied is misleading, false
and frivolous. Hence, true information to be given
from 07.02.2011 as to why constitutional priority
being ignored for the sake of litigants interest?
DRAWN & FILED BY:
(Om Prakash)
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
Appellant No.01 On behalf of Appellant No.02
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077, Dwarka Sector-08
Mob: 9968337815; Email:om.poddar@gmail.com
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 22.04.2018

RTI dated 22.04.2018 against Department of Justice

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to RTI dated 22.04.2018 against Department of Justice

Similar to RTI dated 22.04.2018 against Department of Justice (20)

More from Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

RTI dated 22.04.2018 against Department of Justice