This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission regarding information requested under the Right to Information Act. The appellant had previously filed requests for information from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Begusarai, Bihar regarding two court cases, but was dissatisfied with the responses received. The second appeal argues that the information provided was false, frivolous or incomplete. It provides arguments and evidence to support supplying the full and accurate information requested.

1. Second Appeal
1
FILING INDEX
IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH ……PETITIONER
VERSUS
PATNA HIGH COURT …… RESPONDENT
S.N Particulars Pages
1. Second Appeal dated 03.11.2016 01-11
2. Letter of Registrar
Administration Patna High Court
to District and Session Judge
Civil Court Begusarai dated
30.09.2016
12
3. First Appeal dated 02.09.2016 13-22

2. Second Appeal
2
4. RTI reply by CJM cum PIO Civil
Court Begusarai dated
27.08.2016
23-29
5. RTI request dated 27.05.2016 30-38
6. Letter of Department of Justice
to the Registrar General &
CPIO, Patna High Court dated
05.07.2016
39
7. Letter of Joint Registrar
Judicial Patna High Court to
the CJM cum PIO Civil Court
Begusarai dated 04.08.2016
40
8. Certified Copies of Application
for cancellation of N.B.W dated
25.08.2010 and replication
against case no. 9P of 2010
along with affidavit and
Vakalatnama filed before CJM
division Begusarai dated
41-52

3. Second Appeal
3
03.03.2011.
9. Certified Copies of Order sheet
of CJM division Begusarai w.e.f
31.03.2010 to 02.05.2011.
53-60
Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 03.11.2016 Om Prakash
Diary No. 183722

4. Second Appeal
4
Date: 03/11/2016
Ref: RTI reply No. 438 dated 27.08.2016 by C.J.M Cum-
PIO with attachment of report by concerned courts
under Ld. C.J.M Division Begusarai in case no.
5591/2013 under letter no.115 dated 22.08.2016 and in
case no. 9P/2010 under letter no. 14 dated
23.08.2016.
From:
Om Prakash Poddar
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 Second Appellate Authority,
The Chief Information Commissioner
Room No. 305, B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Sub: Second Appeal U/S 19 (1) of RTI Act 2005
Hon’ble Sir,
I regret that District and Sessions Judge-cum
Appellate Authority, Civil Courts, Begusarai, Bihar
under the judicature of Patna High Court did not

5. Second Appeal
5
reply back the first appeal of the applicant within
the stipulated time of 30 days.
Moreover, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court Begusarai Bihar
has furnished false and frivolous RTI reply on
27.08.2016.
Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public Information
Officer District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION
NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act, "the application for cancellation of
N.B.W 25.08.2010 was never pressed before court, so
no order was passed upon it and neither the
petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before the
court" has been falsified by the record of certified
copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued by Begusarai
Civil Court itself and the same copy has been
submitted at Ld. Trail Court at New Delhi in Case
No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the ground of which
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has pronounced the
Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 on
23.07.2013 in favor of the applicant.
Under these circumstances, either you can give it or
else you can order him or her to supply the same.
The data is important because applicant has to place
on record it in the Review Petition Criminal against
the malfunctioning of State Apparatus which has
arisen out of dismissal of Writ Criminal 136 of 2016
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 21.10.2016.
As another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. has been issued by the same CJM division
against applicant and his Senior Citizen ailing
mother in another frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of
2013 u/s 498A after the closure of case no. 9P of
2010 and kept it secret since then without the

6. Second Appeal
6
knowledge of applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar.
Hence, I request you Hon’ble sir, 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.) The Complaint case no. 397C
of 2011 CIS Reg. no.5591 of 2013 has been filed on
07.03.2011 in the Court of Ld. C.J.M, Begusarai and
the case record vide order dated 07.03.3011 vide
which the case record was make over in the Court of
the then S.D.J.M Begusarai for inquiry and disposal.
Next date of hearing was fixed as 17.03.2011;
08.04.2011; 16.04.2011 and so on. All the proceedings
were conducted in this case as per provisions of law.
From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the
information sought in this paragraph is not available
on the order sheet or on the case record.
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
the next date of hearing on so and so date as per the
perusal of order sheet. However, the applicant is not
in receipt of NOTICE for appearance till date. It has
not been clarified whether notice has been received
back as per the perusal of the order sheet or not.

7. Second Appeal
7
The information supplied is misleading and besides
the information sought. 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.) The order for issuance of
NBW was passed on 08.09.2011 by the then Court and
the accused Om Prakash Poddar & Asha Devi have not
appeared till date. Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C. has been
issued;
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 NBW on the order sheet with Process u/s
83 Cr.P.C.
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?
Supplied Information: 3.) The case record is for
appearance of the accused persons and the accused Om
Prakash Poddar & Asha Devi have not appeared till
date.
Argument and reasons for full information: No
argument hence no comment.

8. Second Appeal
8
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?
Supplied Information: 4.) The Complaint case no.
397C of 2011 CIS Reg. 5591 of 2013 has been filed on
07.03.2011 in the Court of Ld. C.J.M Begusarai and
the case record was make over in the Court of the
then S.D.J.M Begusarai for inquiry and disposal. Next
date of hearing was fixed as 17.03.2011; 08.04.2011;
16.04.2011 and so on.
Argument and reasons for full information: As it has
been admitted fact by the Ld. PIO in the para no.01
of supplied information, “From perusal of the order
sheet, it appears that the information sought in this
paragraph is not available on the order sheet or on
the case record.” Hence, order sheet of e-Court
services supplied by the Ld. System Officer Ld.
District Court Begusarai on 01.03.2016 does not
contain this information.
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.) From the available Case
Records of 9P/2010 the answers of this query cannot
be obtained. Moreover the question is not clear and
there is no material which shows which information
was sought and what was given, particularly by which
court and in which year.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO has directly refused to answer the question in

9. Second Appeal
9
the garb of lack of material evidence; hence you are
requested to supply this information on the ground of
the First Appeal dated 09.08.2016 wherein the
attachment of material evidence has been filed before
you. However, this material was supplied by the Ld.
System Officer, Ld. District Court Begusarai through
email dated 01.03.2016 under the intimation of
cpc-pat@aij.gov.in and ecommittee@aij.gov.in.
Requested Information: 6.) What is the Correlation
between case no. 9P of 2010 and case no. 5591 of
2013?
Supplied Information: 6.) The case no. 9P of 2010 is
not pending in this Court. No materials available,
which shows correlation between two cases.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO has admitted this fact and shown his inability to
answer this question; hence you are requested to
supply this information on the ground of the First
Appeal dated 09.08.2016 with attachment of materials
has been filed before you. However, this material was
supplied by the Ld. System Officer, Ld. District
Court Begusarai through email dated 01.03.2016 under
the intimation of cpc-pat@aij.gov.in and
ecommittee@aij.gov.in. The content of this email
needs to be read as part of the material evidence on
the ground of which this information has been sought
by the applicant.
Requested Information: 7.) Why Magistrate did not
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

10. Second Appeal
10
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.) From the perusal of order
sheets of Case no. 9P/2010, it appears that the
application for cancellation of NBW was never pressed
before court, so no order was passed upon it and
neither the petitioner nor his advocate had appeared
before the court (Clear from order dated 02/5/2011).
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO has supplied absolutely false and frivolous
information because the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi
and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has pronounced the
Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7/2012 on 23.07.2013 on the
ground of certified copy of the Ld. Begusarai Court
vide case no.9P of 2010. It is also evident from
recalling the order dated 04.04.2011 in case no. 9P
of 2010; Vakalatnama filed by on behalf of Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh vide Reg. No. 6255/95;
application for cancellation of NBW and replication
with Affidavit at Ld. C.J.M Court Begusarai at
12.30PM duly signed by the deponent and verified by
his Advocate with signature of the deponent taken on
the register available at Ld. C.J.M Court on
03.03.2011 against case no. 9P of 2010. Applicant is
enclosing herewith the scanned copy of certified
copies of the same and Vakalatnama of his Advocate
for your perusal. Hence, an offence of perjury has
been committed by the Ld. PIO which naturally becomes
the ground for filing Writ Criminal Petition titled
“Om Prakash Vs State of Bihar & Ors” before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, the

11. Second Appeal
11
information supplied is misleading, false and
frivolous. Hence, true information to be given in
line with the information sought.
Requested Information: 8.) Why Magistrate did not
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 information sought by
this question is vague as it is not clear that
regarding Order of which case, it refers.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO has directly refused to supply the information in
the garb of unavailability of records. However, the
records are available at the Ld. Trial Court in case
no. HMA-700 of 2010 at New Delhi. The original
certified copy of it is also available with
applicant. The applicant is enclosing herewith a copy
of order sheet to recall the order dated 04.04.2011
in case no. 9P of 2010; filing Index; Memo of
Parties; Vakalatnama filed by on behalf of Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh vide Reg. No. 6255/95;
application for cancellation of NBW and replication
with Affidavit at Ld. C.J.M Court Begusarai at
12.30PM duly signed by the deponent and verified by
his Advocate with signature of the deponent taken on
the register available at Ld. C.J.M Court on
03.03.2011 against case no. 9P of 2010. Applicant is
enclosing herewith a copy of certified copies of the
same and Vakalatnama of his Advocate for your
perusal. Hence, an offence of perjury has been
committed by the Ld. PIO which naturally becomes the

12. Second Appeal
12
ground for filing Writ Criminal titled “Om Prakash Vs
State of Bihar & Ors” before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. Hence, the information supplied is
misleading, false and frivolous. Hence, true
information to be given in line with the information
sought.
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 information sought by
this question is vague as it is not clear that
regarding which case of this Court, it refers.
Argument and reasons for full information: As the Ld.
PIO has directly refused to supply the information in
the garb of vague question. However, the brief
background of RTI application on the ground of which,
this question being framed by the applicant, has been
totally overlooked by the Ld. PIO. However, all the
case numbers given in the background of RTI
application are available on the record of Indian e-
Court’s website. Moreover, this question is directly
related with case no. 9P of 2010 wherein the
application for cancellation of NBW, Affidavit in
support, reply of complaint No. 9P of 2010 u/s 43(12)
of protection of women from domestic violence Act,

13. Second Appeal
13
2005 for setting aside order under section 18, 19,
20, 21 and 22, Affidavit in support, list of
documents, residence proof of applicant/respondent,
order sheet of the Divorce Petition HMA No. 700 of
2010 proceedings at Ld. Family Court, Ld. Dwarka
Court, copy of divorce Petition HMA No. 700 of 2010
u/s 13 (1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956(as
amended up-to-date) for dissolution of marriage by
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, medical
prescription of Applicant/Respondent (Asha Devi),
Vakalatnama with total numbers of 50 pages have been
filed on 03.03.2011 before the Ld. Court of Ld. 1st
Class Judicial Magistrate, Ld. Shri Atul Kumar
Pathak, Ld. District Court Begusarai, Bihar. Hence,
the information supplied is misleading, false and
frivolous. Hence, true information to be given in
line with the information sought.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 03.11.2016
Enclosure:
1.Letter of Registrar Administration Patna High
Court to District and Session Judge Civil Court
Begusarai dated 30.09.2016 (page from 12 to 12)

14. Second Appeal
14
2.First Appeal dated 02.09.2016(page from 13 to
22)
3.RTI reply by CJM cum PIO Civil Court Begusarai
dated 27.08.2016(page from 23 to 29)
4.RTI request dated 27.05.2016(page from 30 to
38)
5.Letter of Department of Justice to the
Registrar General & CPIO, Patna High Court
dated 05.07.2016(page from 39 to 39)
6.Letter of Joint Registrar Judicial Patna High
Court to the CJM cum PIO Civil Court Begusarai
dated 04.08.2016(page from 40 to 40)
7.Certified Copies of Application for
cancellation of N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and
replication against case no. 9P of 2010 along
with affidavit and Vakalatnama filed before CJM
division Begusarai dated 03.03.2011. (page from
41 to 52)
8.Certified Copies of Order sheet of CJM division
Begusarai w.e.f 31.03.2010 to 02.05.2011. (page
from 53 to 60)