CIC maintains silence to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005Om Prakash Poddar
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
CIC fails to give decision on the request to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act made by the applicant on 30.11.2016, although the imminent danger has been demonstrably proven by the applicant.
Section 7 in the Right to Information Act, 2005 says,
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall be deemed to have refused the request.
(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall communicate to the person making the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
CIC has passed the following observation about section 7(1) in N.N. Kalia Vs University of Delhi on 3rd September 2009, "The life and liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven".
Hence, this case is fit to invoke section 7(1) by CIC. However, CIC maintains silence on applicant’s application.
NOW WHERE TO GO? WHAT TO DO? EXCEPT SURVIVE AT THE MERCY OF GOD OR ELSE FINISH LIFE SILENTLY.
KINDLY INTERVENE INTO THE MATTER AND DO THE NEEDFUL.
PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO CIC
This document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a bail application. It summarizes the arguments from both sides. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and no evidence was found against him during the investigation. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the petitioner confessed to meetings at his home. However, the court found no material connecting the petitioner to the alleged crimes. Considering he has no criminal record and is a religious leader, the court granted bail with several conditions, including depositing his passport and using only one mobile phone.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
The document is a court judgment from the High Court of Orissa regarding an application for bail.
1. The petitioner/accused is charged with rape and other offenses for allegedly developing a romantic relationship with the complainant, getting her pregnant twice and aborting the pregnancies, then posting private photos of her online and threatening her after she wanted to end the relationship and get married to someone else.
2. The court examines the legal standards for rape and consent, and previous cases regarding consent obtained through false promises of marriage.
3. The court will determine if the petitioner should be granted bail based on the facts of the case and whether a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16.01.2018 AGAINST SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR REFUSAL TO REGISTER WRIT CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST UNION OF INDIA.
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
This document is a written submission filed on behalf of the appellant Om Prakash Poddar regarding an appeal before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. The submission argues that the failure to provide information in a previous Right to Information request led to the planned murder of appellant's wife Asha Rani Devi. It requests the Information Commissioner to order the respondent department to provide the information sought in the second appeal and to take punitive action against the Central Public Information Officer for delays. The matter is linked to other appeals previously filed regarding the murder. The appellant fears that further delays in this case could lead to his own murder.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
CIC maintains silence to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005Om Prakash Poddar
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
CIC fails to give decision on the request to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act made by the applicant on 30.11.2016, although the imminent danger has been demonstrably proven by the applicant.
Section 7 in the Right to Information Act, 2005 says,
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall be deemed to have refused the request.
(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall communicate to the person making the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
CIC has passed the following observation about section 7(1) in N.N. Kalia Vs University of Delhi on 3rd September 2009, "The life and liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven".
Hence, this case is fit to invoke section 7(1) by CIC. However, CIC maintains silence on applicant’s application.
NOW WHERE TO GO? WHAT TO DO? EXCEPT SURVIVE AT THE MERCY OF GOD OR ELSE FINISH LIFE SILENTLY.
KINDLY INTERVENE INTO THE MATTER AND DO THE NEEDFUL.
PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO CIC
This document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a bail application. It summarizes the arguments from both sides. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and no evidence was found against him during the investigation. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the petitioner confessed to meetings at his home. However, the court found no material connecting the petitioner to the alleged crimes. Considering he has no criminal record and is a religious leader, the court granted bail with several conditions, including depositing his passport and using only one mobile phone.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
The document is a court judgment from the High Court of Orissa regarding an application for bail.
1. The petitioner/accused is charged with rape and other offenses for allegedly developing a romantic relationship with the complainant, getting her pregnant twice and aborting the pregnancies, then posting private photos of her online and threatening her after she wanted to end the relationship and get married to someone else.
2. The court examines the legal standards for rape and consent, and previous cases regarding consent obtained through false promises of marriage.
3. The court will determine if the petitioner should be granted bail based on the facts of the case and whether a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16.01.2018 AGAINST SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR REFUSAL TO REGISTER WRIT CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST UNION OF INDIA.
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
This document is a written submission filed on behalf of the appellant Om Prakash Poddar regarding an appeal before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. The submission argues that the failure to provide information in a previous Right to Information request led to the planned murder of appellant's wife Asha Rani Devi. It requests the Information Commissioner to order the respondent department to provide the information sought in the second appeal and to take punitive action against the Central Public Information Officer for delays. The matter is linked to other appeals previously filed regarding the murder. The appellant fears that further delays in this case could lead to his own murder.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
First Appeal against misleading RTI reply by Mr. Krishan Talwar, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, CIC New Delhi pertaining to Life and liberty of an underground Appellant in the garb of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005
CPIO says, "advise, response to queries/questions, opinion, reason are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005".
However, RTI request is very much covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. As per the definition of section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005,
Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 reads as "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.
Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SCOm Prakash Poddar
Complied the mandatory provision of Order VIII Rule 5 & 6(i) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and filed letter addressed to Chief Justice of India through filing counter.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
Order of CIC is self explanatory as to how Central Registry of CIC is persisting criminal conspiracy against the Appellant and protecting the bad elements State Apparatus
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
1. Om Prakash, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lower court order from Begusarai, Bihar related to criminal case under Section 498A.
2. The petitioner claims the lower court order directly infringes on his fundamental rights and involves the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. The petitioner is seeking for his writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench of seven judges, as he believes the matter involves constitutional issues across two state jurisdictions.
The petitioner claims ownership in respect of the lands
situated in Survey Nos.34/2, 35/13, 35/1, 35/8, 35/9 and 13/2
situated at Jagirmangalam Village, Thirvalangadu Firka, Tiruttani
Taluk, Thiruvallur District and the properties are ancestral in nature
and he is cultivating the lands. According to the petitioner by playing
fraud the 5th respondent managed to obtain a patta in his name and in
this regard, he has submitted an application to the 2nd respondent who
has called him for an enquiry vide memo dated 11.02.2010 and
according to the petitioner he has also attended the enquiry on
19.02.2010 and since, nothing had happened thereafter, came forward
to file this writ petition.
3. Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Ezhil Raj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 4.
3
4. Though, the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, permits the
petitioner to submit one more representation to the 2nd respondent for
early disposal of his petition dated 04.02.2010 and referred to in the
summons vide Na.Ka.No.469/2010/A2 dated 11.02.2010 within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider
the representation on merits and in accordance with law, after putting
the 5th respondent on notice and pass orders as expeditiously as
possible and not later than eight weeks, thereafter and inform the
decision taken to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.
LETTER-PETITION TO HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIAOm Prakash Poddar
The document is a letter petition submitted to the Chief Justice of India regarding rampant atrocities against the petitioner, an elderly, uneducated woman from a rural area. It details how the petitioner's son was forcibly married at gunpoint and how the petitioner has faced threats and harassment from powerful individuals trying to misuse legal processes against her. It alleges intentional delays and improper handling of her urgent petition by court officials, and seeks relief from further harassment and misuse of legal procedures against her.
This public interest litigation challenges the failure of the CBI and CVC to take action in response to complaints filed regarding alleged abuse of office and criminal misconduct by Justice CK Prasad. The petition alleges that Justice Prasad misused his position as a Supreme Court judge to improperly favor a private party, Mistry Constructions, in a land dispute case, conferring significant financial benefit. The petitioner, an advocate and activist, had filed detailed complaints with various authorities but no investigation or charges have been filed. The petition seeks a directive for the authorities to comply with their duty to investigate under law, and also seeks Justice Prasad's removal as head of the Press Council of India due to the conflict of interest.
Reply to Election Commission Delhi in NGS5322435639 dated 25.11.2022.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ERO Ms. Sunita Raj mobile no. 9650058340 59-Vishwas Nagar Constituency Sahadra district at East Delhi has admitted this fact that she has sent her man for making a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant on 24.11.2022 at Shelter Home DUSIB Code No.214 near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi. Hence, your BLO will disclose the name and address of person for whom he wanted to make fake Voter ID with ulterior motives.
112 call has been made against your fraud BLO dated 24.11.2022 with unique reference no. 6161038, PCR Petrol Vehicle ROMO9A mobile no. 7428002509 at 19.32.34pm. Anand Vihar policeman mobile number is 8595888677. Police had taken him to the police station. Hence police has recorded his name and address and motives behind it.
Inquiry officer Balveer Singh mobile no. 9654963400 of Patpatganj Industrial Area Police Station near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi will provide you the name and address of person who had come to make a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant.
Your fraud BLO did not disclose his identity before complainant.
Complaint dated 27.11.2022 to Commissioner of Polic Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
TAKE the cognizance of obvious links between Ms. Sunita Raj, BLO Anand Vihar and Mr. Manish Raj with this International Sex Racket and direct to concern SHO to register an F.I.R against the accused under relevant sections of IPC.
112 call dated 24.11.2022 at 19.32.34pm with unique reference no. 6161038 and subsequent Complaint dated 25.11.2022 to the Commissioner of Police Delhi dated 25.11.2022 discloses links with Mr. Manish Raj son of Chief Minister of Jharkhand in this International Sex Racket
Suppression of crucial records in Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in W.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 18546/2022 listed for hearing on 28.11.2022 before Chamber Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, Court No.15 CL.NO.1748 may lead to dismissal of petition.
Registry has only recorded the records to defend its heinous work in the Office Report dated 26.11.2022 hiding all the factual crucial records filed by the petitioner even after his reminder though e-filed letter dated 22.11.2022 addressed to Branch Officer and Assistant Registrar Section X
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
Registry has recorded records in his favor only and has ignored the crucial records of petitioner deliberately to dismiss the petition by default.
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 for the hearing of Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18646/2022 on 28.11.2022 has been made hiding the crucial records filed by the petitioner.
Office Report dated 28.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is an office report from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Om Prakash against the Union of India and others. The court had previously given the petitioner four weeks to cure any defects in the petition, but the petitioner has failed to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition within that timeframe. As there are still defects, the registrar has not yet interacted with the petitioner-in-person, so the matter is listed before the court for further directions.
Complaint dated 26.11.22 against Election Officer Katihar Bihar.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
a fake voter identity card has been created by BLO Part-220, Ward No.03, 64-Kadwa Constituency Katihar Bihar vide EPIC No. TYGO395244 against the Complainant. Complainant has figured out malpractices of BLO and submitted requisite form before BLO Gopal Malik mobile no. 9507949474 dated 17.12.2021 for deletion of his name from the voter list to suppress the practice of multiple voter identity cards across the Country.
Complaint dated 25.11.22 against Election Officer Sahadra Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Sex abuser Manish from Election Commission Delhi took my Aadhar Card by fraud to make Voter ID for my kidnapped minor daughter marking me as a legal guardian under Vishwas Nagar Constituency at Sahadra district of East Delhi.
Praying from you to direct the registry to supply the fixed date of hearing to the petitioner in person in writing in Non Bailable and Gang Rape matter W.P. Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 so that he can plan his travel for home
Letter dated 22.11.2022 to Branch Officer Section 10 at Supreme Court of Ind...Om Prakash Poddar
Take all 84 e-filed legal documents with effect from 07.06.2022 to 22.11.2022 along with physical filed legal document with effect from 14.06.2022 to till date on Record of office report for the date of hearing on 25.11.2022
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed deliberately by Supreme Court of India with ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional filed Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed by Supreme Court of India with an ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
More Related Content
Similar to Communication with CIC New Delhi and PMO to make applicable Section 7 (1) of RTI Act 2005 w.e.f 30.11.2016 to 04.01.2017
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
First Appeal against misleading RTI reply by Mr. Krishan Talwar, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, CIC New Delhi pertaining to Life and liberty of an underground Appellant in the garb of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005
CPIO says, "advise, response to queries/questions, opinion, reason are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005".
However, RTI request is very much covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. As per the definition of section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005,
Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 reads as "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.
Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SCOm Prakash Poddar
Complied the mandatory provision of Order VIII Rule 5 & 6(i) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and filed letter addressed to Chief Justice of India through filing counter.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
Order of CIC is self explanatory as to how Central Registry of CIC is persisting criminal conspiracy against the Appellant and protecting the bad elements State Apparatus
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
1. Om Prakash, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lower court order from Begusarai, Bihar related to criminal case under Section 498A.
2. The petitioner claims the lower court order directly infringes on his fundamental rights and involves the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. The petitioner is seeking for his writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench of seven judges, as he believes the matter involves constitutional issues across two state jurisdictions.
The petitioner claims ownership in respect of the lands
situated in Survey Nos.34/2, 35/13, 35/1, 35/8, 35/9 and 13/2
situated at Jagirmangalam Village, Thirvalangadu Firka, Tiruttani
Taluk, Thiruvallur District and the properties are ancestral in nature
and he is cultivating the lands. According to the petitioner by playing
fraud the 5th respondent managed to obtain a patta in his name and in
this regard, he has submitted an application to the 2nd respondent who
has called him for an enquiry vide memo dated 11.02.2010 and
according to the petitioner he has also attended the enquiry on
19.02.2010 and since, nothing had happened thereafter, came forward
to file this writ petition.
3. Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Ezhil Raj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 4.
3
4. Though, the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, permits the
petitioner to submit one more representation to the 2nd respondent for
early disposal of his petition dated 04.02.2010 and referred to in the
summons vide Na.Ka.No.469/2010/A2 dated 11.02.2010 within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider
the representation on merits and in accordance with law, after putting
the 5th respondent on notice and pass orders as expeditiously as
possible and not later than eight weeks, thereafter and inform the
decision taken to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.
LETTER-PETITION TO HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIAOm Prakash Poddar
The document is a letter petition submitted to the Chief Justice of India regarding rampant atrocities against the petitioner, an elderly, uneducated woman from a rural area. It details how the petitioner's son was forcibly married at gunpoint and how the petitioner has faced threats and harassment from powerful individuals trying to misuse legal processes against her. It alleges intentional delays and improper handling of her urgent petition by court officials, and seeks relief from further harassment and misuse of legal procedures against her.
This public interest litigation challenges the failure of the CBI and CVC to take action in response to complaints filed regarding alleged abuse of office and criminal misconduct by Justice CK Prasad. The petition alleges that Justice Prasad misused his position as a Supreme Court judge to improperly favor a private party, Mistry Constructions, in a land dispute case, conferring significant financial benefit. The petitioner, an advocate and activist, had filed detailed complaints with various authorities but no investigation or charges have been filed. The petition seeks a directive for the authorities to comply with their duty to investigate under law, and also seeks Justice Prasad's removal as head of the Press Council of India due to the conflict of interest.
Similar to Communication with CIC New Delhi and PMO to make applicable Section 7 (1) of RTI Act 2005 w.e.f 30.11.2016 to 04.01.2017 (10)
Reply to Election Commission Delhi in NGS5322435639 dated 25.11.2022.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ERO Ms. Sunita Raj mobile no. 9650058340 59-Vishwas Nagar Constituency Sahadra district at East Delhi has admitted this fact that she has sent her man for making a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant on 24.11.2022 at Shelter Home DUSIB Code No.214 near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi. Hence, your BLO will disclose the name and address of person for whom he wanted to make fake Voter ID with ulterior motives.
112 call has been made against your fraud BLO dated 24.11.2022 with unique reference no. 6161038, PCR Petrol Vehicle ROMO9A mobile no. 7428002509 at 19.32.34pm. Anand Vihar policeman mobile number is 8595888677. Police had taken him to the police station. Hence police has recorded his name and address and motives behind it.
Inquiry officer Balveer Singh mobile no. 9654963400 of Patpatganj Industrial Area Police Station near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi will provide you the name and address of person who had come to make a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant.
Your fraud BLO did not disclose his identity before complainant.
Complaint dated 27.11.2022 to Commissioner of Polic Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
TAKE the cognizance of obvious links between Ms. Sunita Raj, BLO Anand Vihar and Mr. Manish Raj with this International Sex Racket and direct to concern SHO to register an F.I.R against the accused under relevant sections of IPC.
112 call dated 24.11.2022 at 19.32.34pm with unique reference no. 6161038 and subsequent Complaint dated 25.11.2022 to the Commissioner of Police Delhi dated 25.11.2022 discloses links with Mr. Manish Raj son of Chief Minister of Jharkhand in this International Sex Racket
Suppression of crucial records in Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in W.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 18546/2022 listed for hearing on 28.11.2022 before Chamber Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, Court No.15 CL.NO.1748 may lead to dismissal of petition.
Registry has only recorded the records to defend its heinous work in the Office Report dated 26.11.2022 hiding all the factual crucial records filed by the petitioner even after his reminder though e-filed letter dated 22.11.2022 addressed to Branch Officer and Assistant Registrar Section X
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
Registry has recorded records in his favor only and has ignored the crucial records of petitioner deliberately to dismiss the petition by default.
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 for the hearing of Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18646/2022 on 28.11.2022 has been made hiding the crucial records filed by the petitioner.
Office Report dated 28.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is an office report from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Om Prakash against the Union of India and others. The court had previously given the petitioner four weeks to cure any defects in the petition, but the petitioner has failed to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition within that timeframe. As there are still defects, the registrar has not yet interacted with the petitioner-in-person, so the matter is listed before the court for further directions.
Complaint dated 26.11.22 against Election Officer Katihar Bihar.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
a fake voter identity card has been created by BLO Part-220, Ward No.03, 64-Kadwa Constituency Katihar Bihar vide EPIC No. TYGO395244 against the Complainant. Complainant has figured out malpractices of BLO and submitted requisite form before BLO Gopal Malik mobile no. 9507949474 dated 17.12.2021 for deletion of his name from the voter list to suppress the practice of multiple voter identity cards across the Country.
Complaint dated 25.11.22 against Election Officer Sahadra Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Sex abuser Manish from Election Commission Delhi took my Aadhar Card by fraud to make Voter ID for my kidnapped minor daughter marking me as a legal guardian under Vishwas Nagar Constituency at Sahadra district of East Delhi.
Praying from you to direct the registry to supply the fixed date of hearing to the petitioner in person in writing in Non Bailable and Gang Rape matter W.P. Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 so that he can plan his travel for home
Letter dated 22.11.2022 to Branch Officer Section 10 at Supreme Court of Ind...Om Prakash Poddar
Take all 84 e-filed legal documents with effect from 07.06.2022 to 22.11.2022 along with physical filed legal document with effect from 14.06.2022 to till date on Record of office report for the date of hearing on 25.11.2022
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed deliberately by Supreme Court of India with ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional filed Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed by Supreme Court of India with an ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains information from the Supreme Court of India case management system. It lists details of a writ petition filed by Om Prakash such as the case type, number, year and presiding bench. It also includes a table with 10 uploaded PDF documents related to the petition, interlocutory applications and memos of appearance. General information about the court such as jurisdiction, officers, rules, and procedures is also presented.
E-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Supreme Court ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains details of a case filed with the Supreme Court of India, including the case type, number, year, petitioner and respondent details, and a list of uploaded documents related to the case. It provides contact information for the Supreme Court of India and links to other resources on their website.
Complaint dated 21.11.2022 against Bihar and Delhi police to NHRC.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
The National Human Rights Commission has received a complaint from Om Prakash regarding the kidnapping and abduction of his family members and minor daughters since 2011. The complaint details that neither the Delhi Police nor Bihar Police have registered an FIR regarding this incident. The complaint further states that the police complaint and post-mortem report of Om Prakash's deceased mother, who died in 2017, are still pending with the Palam Village Police Station in New Delhi. Om Prakash alleges that five individuals, including two advocates, can provide information to rescue his minor daughters and has requested that an FIR be registered against these five people.
E-filed status dated 15.11.22 before Supreme Court of India.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
E-filed Important legal documents like Interlocutory Applications for additional grounds and cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant has not been entered into Physical filing case record Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 to present the wrong fact before the Chamber Judge on 25.11.2022
Complaint aginst Delhi Police to NHRC New Delhi dated 20.11.22.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police case.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters. Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Writ Petition Criminal Diary Number 18546 of 2022 Part-I .pdfOm Prakash Poddar
International Sex Racket and Anti-Prostitution Petition before Supreme Court of India.
These five are key people and will reveal all records in this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court New Delhi.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Communication with CIC New Delhi and PMO to make applicable Section 7 (1) of RTI Act 2005 w.e.f 30.11.2016 to 04.01.2017
1. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Sub: Prayer for URGENT hearing against Second Appeal Diary No.
183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a
Senior Citizen Women-reg.
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:13
PM
To: rk.mathur53@gov.in
Date: 30.11.2016
To,
The Chief Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission
Room No.339, II Floor
August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Sub: Prayer for URGENT hearing against Second Appeal
Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to
‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-
reg.
2. Hon’ble Sir,
1.The matter pertains to Life or Personal liberty of
a Senior Citizen Women Widow Asha Rani Devi, age
about 71 years against Diary No. 183722 dated
03.11.2016. Hence, Matter is URGENT. Patna High Court
(FAA) has not replied it back against First Appeal
till date.
2.That data is important to file Curative Petition
Criminal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
after the dismissal of Review Petition Criminal 825
of 2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which
will be heard on 01.12.2016 in the Chamber of Justice
Pinaki Chandra Ghose & U U Lalit at 1:30 PM.
3.N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued and kept it secret since then for the
same cause of action which has been settled by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in MAT.
APPL. 7 of 2012 after the appearance by the
respondent on 09.02.2011 before the Ld. Trial Court
3. at Dwarka at New Delhi.
4.Therefore praying for early hearing against the
diary no.183722 dated 03.11.2016 on the ground of
urgency; as it is still pending under scrutiny stage
with the Central Registry of CIC, New Delhi.
Second Appellant
Om Prakash
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
Enclosure: As Above
CIC_early hearing against diary no 183722 dated 03.11.2016.pdf
98K
4. Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Photographs of the victim in support of URGENT hearing against
Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 & RTI request dated
27.05.2016; which pertains to Life or Personal liberty of a Senior Citizen
Women-reg.
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:32 PM
To: "rk.mathur53@gov.in" <rk.mathur53@gov.in>
Date: 30.11.2016
To,
The Chief Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission
Room No.339, II Floor
August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Sub: Photographs of the victim in support of URGENT
hearing against Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated
03.11.2016 & RTI request dated 27.05.2016; which
pertains to Life or Personal liberty of a Senior
Citizen Women-reg.
5. Sir,
1.The matter pertains to Life or Personal liberty of
a Senior Citizen Women Widow Asha Rani Devi, age
about 71 years against Diary No. 183722 dated
03.11.2016. RTI request has been filed on 27.05.2016.
Hence, Matter is URGENT. Patna High Court (FAA) has
not replied it back against First Appeal till date.
2.That data is important to file Curative Petition
Criminal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
after the dismissal of Review Petition Criminal 825
of 2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which
will be heard on 01.12.2016 in the Chamber of Justice
Pinaki Chandra Ghose & U U Lalit at 1:30 PM.
3.N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued and kept it secret since then for the
same cause of action which has been settled by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in MAT.
APPL. 7 of 2012 after the appearance by the
respondent on 09.02.2011 before the Ld. Trial Court
at Dwarka at New Delhi.
4. Atrocities of Mafia & State Apparatus on OLD AGE
patients since 2004; he died while his wife is
surviving. Headmaster, Late Shri Deep Narayan
6. Poddar 1939-2007 & his wife Widow Asha Rani Devi
1946 to till date. Case link has all material
evidences against this
statement. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/state-apparatus-involved-
killing-conman-man-india-om-prakash-poddar?trk=prof-
post; http://seniorcitizenrights.blogspot.in/2016/11/dear-all-who-is-
responsible-for-brutal.html
5.Therefore praying for early hearing against the
diary no.183722 dated 03.11.2016 and
enclosing/supplying photographs of the victim as a
ground of urgency; as it is still pending under
scrutiny stage with the Central Registry of CIC, New
Delhi. Mr. U C Joshi does not pick up the landlines
number and does not like the mobile calls. He
categorically states that there is no time limit and
clear guidelines against the scrutiny business by the
CIC. Priority & urgency matters do not have clear
guidelines by CIC.
Second Appellant
Om Prakash
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2
7. Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
Enclosure:As Above
7 attachments
Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar 1939-2007.jpg
489K
Oxygen dependent Widow Asha Rani Devi.jpg
33K
Oxygen dependent Widow Asha Rani Devi1.jpg
36K
AIIMS_5.jpg
38K
Widow Asha Rani Devi on Home Oxygen.jpg
261K
CIC_photographs of victim in support of early hearing against diary no 183722 dated
03.11.2016.pdf
104K
Second Appeal against Patna High Court_03_11_2016.pdf
340K
11. VICTIM NO.02 OXYGEN DEPENDENT SENIOR CITIZEN
WHO HAS BEEN ENCIRCLED IN THE SIMILAR FASHION BY
THE STATE APPARATUS LIKELY TO DEATH
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Sub: Prayer for URGENT registration of matter against Second Appeal
Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal
liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-reg.
UmeshChandra Joshi <umesh.joshi@gov.in>
Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:36
AM
To: Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
12. Sir,
With reference to your above said mail, the Appeal diarised vide diary No.183722 dated 3.11.2016
was examined and it found that you have not claimed the ground of life and liberty at any stage i.e
RTI application, Ist appeal or even in IInd appeal. It is out of preview of Central Registry to acceede
to you request.
DS(CR)
On 11/30/16 02:42 PM, Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> wrote:
Date: 30.11.2016
To,
Shri U.C.Joshi
August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Sub: Prayer for URGENT registration of matter against
Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016;
which pertains to ‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a
Senior Citizen Women-reg.
Sir,
1.The matter pertains to Life or Personal liberty of
a Senior Citizen Women Widow Asha Rani Devi, age
about 71 years against Diary No. 183722 dated
03.11.2016. Hence, Matter is URGENT. Patna High Court
(FAA) has not replied it back against First Appeal
till date.
2.That data is important to file Curative Petition
13. Criminal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
after the dismissal of Review Petition Criminal 825
of 2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which
will be heard on 01.12.2016 in the Chamber of Justice
Pinaki Chandra Ghose & U U Lalit at 1:30 PM.
3.N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued and kept it secret since then for the
same cause of action which has been settled by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in MAT.
APPL. 7 of 2012 after the appearance by the
respondent on 09.02.2011 before the Ld. Trial Court
at Dwarka at New Delhi.
4.Therefore praying for early hearing against the
diary no.183722 dated 03.11.2016 on the ground of
urgency; as it is still pending under scrutiny stage
with the Central Registry of CIC, New Delhi.
Second Appellant
Om Prakash
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
14. Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
CIC INVOKED SECTION 7(1) IN N.N. Kalia vs University of Delhi CASE
and should invoke the same against Second Appeal vide diary no.
183722 dated 03.11.2016
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:58
PM
To: "rk.mathur53@gov.in" <rk.mathur53@gov.in>
Cc: UmeshChandra Joshi <umesh.joshi@gov.in>, registrar-cic@nic.in, sharma.subhash@nic.in, DINESH
KUMAR <dineshupsc@gmail.com>, pushpaggn@yahoo.com
To,
The Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Hon'ble Sir,
1. CIC has invoked section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in
N.N. Kalia Vs University of Delhi earlier.
2. The CIC passed following observation about section
15. 7(1), which might enable the Commission to take
decision against the Second Appeal vide diary
No.183722 dated 03.11.2016 which pertains to life or
personal liberty.
"The life and liberty provision can be applied only
in cases where there is an imminent danger to the
life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of
the information may either lead to death or grievous
injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person
is threatened if she or he is going to be
incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the
disclosure of the information may change that
situation. If the disclosure of the information would
obviate the danger then it may be considered under
the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has
to be demonstrably proven".
3. That there is imminent danger to the life of
applicant and his oxygen dependent mother in this
case because offrivolous N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued and kept it
secret since then after the settlement of same matter
by High Court of Delhi in 2013
4. That above the amputee father of the applicant
(photo attached) has been encircled to death by the
nexus of State Apparatus and Mafia in 2007 untimely.
5. Hence, head of the family has been incarcerated
earlier and subjected to death.
16. 6. That oxygen dependent 71 year old mother who is
dependent on unemployed applicant only (photo
attached) and residing on rented accommodation at New
Delhi is going to be incarcerated by the issuance of
frivolous N.B.W.
6. That the non-supply of the information may either
lead to death or grievous injury to my oxygen
dependent mother and me.
Hence this case is a fit case to invoke section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005 by CIC in the furtherance of Justice.
With Best Regards
Om Prakash
Second Appellant vide diary no.183722 dated
03.11.2016
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
RZF-893 Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2
Palam Colony, New Delhi-77
Dwarka Sector-08
9968337815
9 attachments
Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar 1939-2007.jpg
489K
Oxygen dependent Widow Asha Rani Devi1.jpg
36K
AIIMS_5.jpg
38K
RTI online request.pdf
140K
CIC complaint_Patna High Court_2.pdf
5K
CIC COMPLAINT AGAINST CJM CUM PIO BEGUSARAI.pdf
5K
17. CIC Complaint_Department of Legal Affair_CIC Complaint.pdf
5K
CIC_Online appeal application submitted_30_10_16 Department of Legal Affairs.pdf
66K
CIC_Online appeal application submitted_01_11_16_Department of Justice.pdf
65K
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Application u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 against Diary No. 183722 dated
03.11.2016-reg
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:22
PM
To: jsadmin-cic@nic.in, sp.beck@nic.in
Date 15.12.2016
To,
Shri S.P. Beck
Joint Secretary (Admin)
Head of Registry CIC
New Delhi
Sub: Application u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 against
Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016-reg
Sir,
18. 1.The request u/s 7(1) of RTI Act has been made on
30.11.2016 through email by the applicant.
2.Reply from DS(CR) Shri U C Joshi has been received
on 02.12.2016.
3.Rejoinder has been filed before Registrar on
05.12.2016 physically by the applicant, demonstrably
proving the imminent danger to the life and liberty
of a Senior Citizen Oxygen dependent Woman.
4.Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 is still pending
at the scrutiny stage with DS(CR)even after marking
by the Chief of CIC and Registrar of CIC.
5.Hence, praying to convert the diary No. 183722
dated 03.11.2016 into CIC file so that Section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005can be made applicable by the Chief
CIC.
Please find enclosed the previous communication
Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 made by the applicant,
wherein the imminent danger to life and liberty has
been demonstrably proven.
19. Submitted for your information and necessary action
please.
With Best Regards,
Second Appellant
Om Prakash
RZF-893
NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI-110077
9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com
ENCLOSURE:
1. Om Prakash's Application under section 7(1) of RTI
Act 2005 to JS Admin of CIC
2.Communication under section 7 sub section 1 of RTI
Act with CIC
2 attachments
20. Communication under section 7 sub section 1 of RTI Act with CIC.pdf
604K
Om Prakash Application under section 7 of RTI Act to CIC_JS Admin.pdf
92K
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Reminder-1 "Application u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 against Diary No.
183722 dated 03.11.2016-reg"
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:59
PM
To: "rk.mathur53@gov.in" <rk.mathur53@gov.in>
To,
The Chief Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission
Room No.339, II Floor
August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
Sub: Application u/s 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 against
Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016-reg
21. Sir,
1.The request u/s 7(1) of RTI Act has been made on
30.11.2016 through email by the applicant.
2.Reply from DS(CR) Shri U C Joshi has been received
on 02.12.2016.
3.Rejoinder has been filed before Registrar on
05.12.2016 physically by the applicant, demonstrably
proving the imminent danger to the life and liberty
of a Senior Citizen Oxygen dependent Woman.
4.Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 is still pending
at the scrutiny stage with DS(CR)even after marking
by the Chief of CIC and Registrar of CIC.
5.Hence, praying to convert the diary No. 183722
dated 03.11.2016 into CIC file so that Section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005can be made applicable by the Chief
CIC.
Please find enclosed the previous communication
22. Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 made by the applicant,
wherein the imminent danger to life and liberty has
been demonstrably proven.
Submitted for your information and necessary action
please.
With Best Regards,
Second Appellant
Om Prakash
RZF-893
NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI-110077
9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com
ENCLOSURE:
1.Communication under section 7 sub section 1 of RTI
23. Act with CIC
Communication under section 7 sub section 1 of RTI Act with CIC.pdf
604K
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Sub: Prayer for URGENT registration of matter against Second Appeal
Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal
liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-reg.
UmeshChandra
Joshi <umesh.joshi@gov.in>
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:50 PM
To: Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
With reference to your query the Hon'ble CIC has held that " There is no statutory provision under
the RTI Act,2005 to prioritize the hearing of second appeal and decide the same within 48
hours as matter concerning life and Liberty".
For information please.
DS(CR)
[Quoted text hidden]
Centralized Public Grievance Redress and
Monitoring System (CPGRAMS)
Registration Number : PMOPG/E/2016/0577788
Name Of Complainant : OM PRAKASH
Date of Receipt : 13 Dec 2016
Received by : Prime Ministers Office
Forwarded to : DSIR-Information Rights
Contact Address : Room No. 279-A, North Block
New Delhi
110001
Contact Number : 23092755
Grievance Description : Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, CIC fails to give decision on the request to invoke
section 7(1) of RTI Act made by the applicant on 30.11.2016, although the imminent
danger has been demonstrably proven by the applicant. Section 7 in the Right to
Information Act, 2005 says, (2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be fails to give decision on the request for
information within the period specified under sub section (1), the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall be
24. deemed to have refused the request. (8) Where a request has been rejected under sub
section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be shall communicate to the person making the request,— (i) the reasons for
such rejection; (ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be
preferred; and (iii) the particulars of the appellate authority. (9) An information shall
ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately
divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
preservation of the record in question. CIC has passed the following observation about
section 7(1) in N.N. Kalia Vs University of Delhi on 3rd September 2009, "The life and
liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the
life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death
or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is
going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the
information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate
the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent
danger has to be demonstrably proven". Hence, this case is fit to invoke section 7(1) by
CIC. However, CIC maintains silence on applicant’s application. NOW WHERE TO
GO? WHAT TO DO? EXCEPT SURVIVE AT THE MERCY OF GOD OR ELSE
FINISH LIFE SILENTLY. KINDLY INTERVENE INTO THE MATTER AND DO
THE NEEDFUL. PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO CIC
Current Status : CASE CLOSED
Date of Action : 04 Jan 2017
Details : Non-implementation of provisions of RTI Act may be taken up with the concerned
Information Commissions as conmplaints under section 18 of the RTI Act.