First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of India for REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF WRIT CRIMINAL AGAINST UNION OF INDIA D.NO.2188 OF 2017 Aggrieved by the reply of Adl. Registrar & CPIO, Supreme Court of India dated 04.03.2017, appellant preferred First Appeal against CPIO of Supreme Court of India dated 07.03.2017 before Ld. Registrar (Admin) & First Appellate Authority (FAA) Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.

1. FILING INDEX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH ……APPELLANT
VERSUS
ADDL. REGISTRAR & CPIO …… RESPONDENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N Particulars Pages
1. First Appeal dated 08.03.2017 01-10
2. RTI request dated 02.02.2017 11-11
3. RTI reply by CPIO SC dated
04.03.2017
12-12
4. Communication with Ld.Registrar
Supreme Court of India w.e.f.
24.01.2017 to 02.02.2017
13-20
5. Lodgment Order dated 28.01.2017
by this Hon’ble Court.
21-23
6. Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017
by this Hon’ble Court.
24-26
Appellant in Person
Filed on: 08.03.2017 Om Prakash
Diary No.
(Widow Asha Rani Devi)
On behalf of Appellant No.02
RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-77, DWARKA SECTOR-08

2. Date: 08/03/2017
Ref: RTI reply Dy. No. 2522/RTI/16-17/SCI dated
04.03.2017 by Adl. Registrar & CPIO Supreme Court
of India.
From:
Om Prakash Poddar
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-10077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
To,
The First Appellate Authority
Ld. Registrar (Admin)
Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
Sub: First Appeal under Right to Information Act
2005.
Sir,
I regret that CPIO Supreme Court of India, New
Delhi have supplied the information
unsatisfactorily and misleading. CPIO Supreme
Court of India refused to reply against refusal
of registration of Writ Petition Criminal D.NO.
2188 of 2017 entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION
OF INDIA & ORS” and subsequent abuse of power by
Registrar (J-I) under the provisions of Order XV,
Rules 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 in the
garb of no reasonable cause to be received for
registration of Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188
of 2017.
THE INFORMATION HAS NEITHER BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST
THE JUDICIAL ORDER NOR BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST THE
INTERPRETATION OF LAW OF THIS HON’BLE COURT OR OF
ANY OTHER COURT.

3. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT AGAINST THE ABUSE
OF POWER BY THE QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF ORDER XV, RULE 5 OF THE SUPREME
COURT RULES, 2013; AND INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE OF
REASONABLE CAUSE TO PROTECT BAD ELEMENTS OF STATE
APPARATUS.
Matter pertains to imminent danger to Life
and Liberty of a Senior Citizen oxygen
dependent woman therefore information has
been sought in view of section 7(1) of RTI
Act 2005
Hence, either you can supply the information
against SEVEN questions sought pertaining to the
abuse of power under the provisions of Order XV,
Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by the
QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICER, Registrar (J-I), Supreme
Court of India or else you can order him to
supply the same satisfactorily, or supply the
same as per the rules under RTI Act-2005. My
point wise averments and arguments are as under:
Requested Information: 1.)
Is violation of set practice, procedure and rules
against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by the Registry
of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
Handbook of this Hon’ble Court to stop the
petitioner no. 02 to agitate the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court not a
reasonable cause to be received for registration
of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?
Requested Information: 2.)
Is evasion of Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court
Rules 2013 against Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 by
two judges bench is not a reasonable cause to be
received for registration of Writ Criminal of
2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?
Requested Information: 3.)
Is likelihood of bias as laid down in the Yadav
Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 is not a
reasonable cause to be received for registration
of Writ Criminal of 2017 vide D.NO.2188 of 2017?

4. Requested Information: 4.)
Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-I)
of this Hon’ble Court has disclosed the
petitioner’s claim of relief in the nature of
prohibition or certiorari only while the relief
has been claimed in the nature of Mandamus also?
Requested Information: 5.)
Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-I)
of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that the
petitioners were afforded liberty to approach
Patna High Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 while the petitioner had lodged strong
protest against it in the open Court and this
Order suffers from biased and prejudiced judgment
by two judges bench of this Hon’ble Court?
Requested Information: 6.)
Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-
I) of this Hon’ble Court gives false statement
that the reliefs claimed in the present petition
revolve around the same subject matter which came
to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on
21.10.2016 while previous petition claimed only
two relief whereas the present petition has
claimed nine relief?
Requested Information: 7.)
Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (J-
I) of this Hon’ble Court has misconceived that
the petitioners are re-agitating the same
petition while the petitioners have been stopped
by the Registry since 03.10.2016 to agitate the
matter at right place before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court as per the set practice,
procedure and rules of this Hon’ble Court?
Supplied Information: 1 to 7.) You are
Petitioner-in-Person in Writ Petition (Crl.)
D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled “Om Prakash and
Another” Vs “Union of India and Others”.
Information as sought for by you are presumptive
and no information can be provided to that
extent. Further, “It is beyond the jurisdiction
and scope of the duties of CPIO, Supreme Court of
India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to
interpret the law, judgments/orders of this

5. Hon’ble Court or of any other Court, to give
explanation, opine, comment or advice on matters.
Your request is not covered under Section 2 (f)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot
be acceded to that extent. However, the instant
writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
in-person on 18.01.2017 and the same was placed
before the Ld. Registrar (J-I) on 28.01.2017,
when the Ld. Registrar was pleased to hold that
the present petition is not maintainable and the
same does not disclose any reasonable cause to be
received for registration under the provisions of
Order XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are available on
the Supreme Court website and can be
accessed/downloaded therefrom. Further,
Petitioner-in-Person was informed vide Order
dated 28.01.2017 of Ld. Registrar. The same was
delivered by hand to the petitioner-in-person on
02.02.2017.
Argument and reasons for full information:
1.Aggrieved by the Lodgment Order dated
28.01.2017 of this Hon’ble Court, the
appellant has preferred Writ Petition (Crl.)
D.NO. 3913 of 2017 entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR
VS. THE REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA &
ANR” and subsequent lodgment Order dated
16.02.2017, the appellant has moved an appeal
by way of motion against Lodgment Order dated
16.02.2017 which is pending.
2.That the provision of Order XV, Rule 5 of
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 clearly stipulate,
“The Registrar may refuse to receive a
petition on the ground that it discloses no
reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains
scandalous matter but the petitioner may
within fifteen days of the making of such
order, appeal by way of motion, from such
refusal to the Court”.
3.There is fresh/new cause of action which has
been arisen by this Hon’ble Court. There has
been intentional ignorance of reasonable

6. cause by the Ld. Registrar (J-I) of this
Hon’ble Court.
4.The Bad elements of state apparatus from
Delhi and Bihar both are the respondents in
the Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017
entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA
& ORS” while the bad elements of state
apparatus from Bihar only, are the
respondents in the Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016 entitled OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. STATE
OF BIHAR & ORS”
-:RESPONDENTS:-
1. Union of India ….RESPONDENT No.01
Through the Cabinet Secretary
Cabinet Secretariat
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi-110004
2. The Registrar (Misc) ….RESPONDENT No.02
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
3. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.03
Through Chief Secretary,
Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
4. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.04
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna-800028
5. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.05
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
6. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.06
Cum-Legal Remembrancer
Law Department, Government of Bihar

7. Main Secretariat Patna-800015
7. Shri Praveen Kumar(IDAS).RESPONDENT No.07
Chairman and Managing Director (C&MD),
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
H.O. Scope Complex, Core-6, 1st
Floor
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
5.There are 9 nine reliefs have been prayed in
the Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017
entitled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA
& ORS” while only 2 reliefs have been prayed
in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016
entitled OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. STATE OF BIHAR
& ORS”
-:PRAYER:-
In the above premises, it is prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) To issue a writ of prohibition or
Certiorari or other appropriate
writ order or direction directing
respondent No.04 and 05 for
cancellation of N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
against Shri Om Prakash Poddar and
Ms Asha Devi and quashing of the
pending criminal proceedings in
Criminal Case Complaint (P)
No.5591 of 2013 u/s 498A to ensure
life or personal liberty and
freedom of movement across the
Indian Territory by the petitioner
no.01 and 02.
(ii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.04 to issue an order of
dismissal and imprisonment against
the concerned Magistrate and Women
Protection officer for an offence
of perjury and illegal confinement
of the petitioner no.01 and 02.

8. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent No.
01 and 03 for enforcement of the
Fundamental Rights under Article
21 to initiate appropriate action
and pass necessary directions to
prevent such incidence of misuse
of Government Machinery against
consistent planting of criminal
conspiracy against the vulnerable
petitioner no.01 and 02 as the
petitioner no.01 has been left
with only one member in his family
now, after an untimely demise of
his father in the similar fashion.
(iv) To issue a writ of prohibition
or other appropriate writ order
or direction directing respondent
No.02 to prevent violation of the
set practice, procedures and rules
as laid down in the Handbook of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
to achieve the UN goal of access
to justice for all.
(v) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.03 and 06 to issue a dismissal
order against Women Protection
Officer, Ms Veena Kumari and to
cancel the registration no.
836/1991 of her husband Advocate
Gopal kumar registered under Bihar
State Bar Council for an offence
of perjury and to issue an order
against them to pay the amount of
Rs. 50 lakh to the petitioner
no.01 and 02 as a compensation for
causing them irreparable damage,
loss and illegal confinement.

9. (vi) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.01 to issue dismissal order
against respondent no.07 for an
offence of perjury.
(vii) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.07 to pay the amount of Rs. 50
lakh to the petitioner no.01 and
02 as a compensation for keeping
them captive and house arrest
illegally and causing them
irreparable damage and loss.
(viii) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.01 to issue order of removal
against Legal Aid Advocates from
the empanelment of Legal Aid
Institutions who were associated
with the case of petitioner from
Trial Court to High Court of Delhi
to Supreme Court of India and
eventually for their direct and
indirect denial to render Legal
Aid services to the petitioner.
(ix) To issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent
No.01 to bring necessary
amendments in the Constitution and
respective legislations; resulting
out of the interpretation of the
Constitution in this case.
6.The information supplied is absolutely
misleading, besides the information sought
through seven questions which has nothing to
do with the Judicial Order or interpretation

10. of Law and protecting the bad elements of
state apparatus.
7.Hence, true information to be supplied in
accordance with RTI Act 2005.
8.Appellant falls under below the poverty line
Category hence requisite fees not enclosed
with this Second Appeal.
9.The petitioner is filing the present First
Appeal to the First Appellate Authority,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi to seek
reply against the above noted 7 questions for
refusal of registration and abuse of power
under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by the Ld.
Registrar (J-I) of this Hon’ble Court; and
intentional ignorance of reasonable cause for
registration of Writ Petition (Crl.) D.NO.
2188 of 2017.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
APPELLANT IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 08.03.2017
(WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI)
ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO.02
Encl:
1.RTI request dated 02.02.2017
2.RTI reply by CPIO SC dated 04.03.2017
3.Communication with Ld. Registrar Supreme
Court of India w.e.f. 24.01.2017 to
02.02.2017
4.Lodgment Order dated 28.01.2017 by this
Hon’ble Court.
5.Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 by this
Hon’ble Court.

11. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Regarding Curative Pet. D.No. 41026/16
1 message
Section X, Supreme Court of India <sec.x@sci.nic.in>
Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:52
PM
To: om.poddar@gmail.com
D.NO. 4293/2016/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. January 24, 2017
FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077
CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ... OF 2016 (D.No. 41026)
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 825 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)
OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners
-Vs-
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ...Respondents

12. Sir,
With reference to Point No.1 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter
above-mentioned, I am directed to inform you that no action is called for
on your letter dated 16.12.2016 sent via e-mail dated 17.12.2016 as the
writ petition and the review petition have been dismissed on merits by
this Hon'ble Court and the Curative petition has been filed.
With reference to Point No.2 of your email dated 22.12.2016 in the matter
above-mentioned,I am directed to further inform you that the curative
petition above-mentioned is being processed for listing before the Hon'ble
Judge-in-Chambers and you shall be informed about the date of listing in
due course.
Yours faithfully
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn:The Registrar (Miscellaneous)
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:20
PM
To: sec.x@sci.nic.in
Date: 25.01.2017
To,
The Registrar (Miscellaneous)
Section X
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sub: Reply to your email letter vide diary no.
4293/2016/X dated 24.01.2017 -reg.
Hon’ble Madam,

13. 1. That the petitioner has filed a Writ
Petition Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR
VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS” vide diary
No.2188 dated 18.01.2017 before Hon’ble the
Supreme Court of India.
2.That the petitioner does not give his
consent to list the Curative Petition
Criminal vide diary no.41026 before Hon’ble
Judge-in-Chamber WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR.
ADVOCATE as it violates the guideline laid
down inRupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra
& Anr. Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388
because petitioner has not filed the
Certificate by Sr. Advocate with valid
reason clarified under para 15 of the
same petition.
3.That it is the discretion of Hon’ble
Registrar Misc. either to process or not to
process the same for listing under the
above circumstances on her own risk.
Prayed for urgency accordingly,
Petitioner-In-Person
Om Prakash
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony
New Delh-110077
Mob:9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com

14. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn:The Registrar Judicial (Section IB)
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:41
PM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
To,
The Registrar Judicial
Section IB
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sub: Regarding Notification of defects against diary
No.2188 dated 18.01.2017-reg.
Hon’ble Sir/Madam,
1.That the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition
Criminal titled “OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS” vide diary No.2188 dated 18.01.2017
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India.
2.That the petitioner has not given his consent
through his email letter dated 25.01.2017 in
response to the letter dated 24.01.2017 vide
diary no. 4293/2016/X of Registrar Misc. Section
X to list the Curative Petition Criminal vide
diary no.41026 before Hon’ble Judge-in-Chamber
WITHOUT CERTIFICATE BY SR. ADVOCATE as it
violates the guideline laid down in Rupa Ashok
Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr. Reported in
(2002) 4 SCC 388 because petitioner has not
filed the Certificate by Sr. Advocate with

15. valid reason clarified under para 15 of the
same petition.
3.That the matter pertains to imminent
danger to the life and liberty of a Senior
Citizen Oxygen dependent Women as well as an
offence of perjury committed by the Lower
Court.
4.That the petitioner is trying to mention
the matter before Hon’ble the Chief justice
of India’s Court since 03.10.2016 but being
stopped by the Registry of this Hon’ble
Court.
5.That this happens to be the last resort
under the legal remedy before COURT OF LAW
for the petitioner. As this is a 12 years
long matter.
6.That the notification of defects has been
delayed by the normal time by Section IB.
7. That the petitioner is praying for urgent
notification of defects so that the matter
could be listed urgently and eventually
could be mentioned urgently for urgent
relief.
Prayed for urgency accordingly,

16. Filed on: 31.01.2017 OM PRAKASH
New Delhi: PETITIONER IN PERSON
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2. Palam Colony
New Delh-110077
Mob:9968337815
E-mail:om.poddar@gmail.com
Om Prakash Poddar
<om.poddar@gmail.com>
Letter regarding lodgement of W.P.(C) D.No. 2188/17
1 message
Section X, Supreme Court of India <sec.x@sci.nic.in>
Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:14
AM
To: om.poddar@gmail.com
D.NO. 501/2017/X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI.
February 1, 2017
FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)
TO : MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
R/O RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART – 2,

17. PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110077
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ... OF 2017 (D.No. 2188)
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSITITUTION OF INDIA)
OM PRAKASH & ANR. ...Petitioners
-Vs-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Sir,
With reference to the writ petition above-mentioned filed by
you on 18.01.2016, I am to inform you that the same was
placed before Ld. Registrar(J-I) on 28.01.2017, when the Ld.
Registrar was pleased to hold that the present writ petition
is not maintainable and the same does not disclose any
reasonable cause to be received for registration under Order
XV, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Photocopy of
the Order is enclosed herewith.
This is for your information.
Yours faithfully
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(JUDL.)

18. LODGMENT ORDER DATED 28.01.2017 & 16.02.2017