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
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.
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
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.
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of India alleging planned judicial murder by the Supreme Court of India. It summarizes a long-running legal dispute involving two states and multiple cases related to property and domestic issues. It alleges bias and impropriety and requests intervention into reversing judicial orders and allowing a pending petition to be heard regarding cancellation of legal notices and relief from ongoing criminal cases.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs orderZahidManiyar
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission in India regarding information sought through Right to Information requests but not received. It summarizes previous requests and appeals filed with the Department of Legal Affairs in the Government of India and the Law Department of the Government of Bihar regarding frivolous legal cases filed against the appellant in 2010 and 2011. The appellant is seeking replies to 9 questions regarding the cases from the respondent departments.
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
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.
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of India alleging planned judicial murder by the Supreme Court of India. It summarizes a long-running legal dispute involving two states and multiple cases related to property and domestic issues. It alleges bias and impropriety and requests intervention into reversing judicial orders and allowing a pending petition to be heard regarding cancellation of legal notices and relief from ongoing criminal cases.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs orderZahidManiyar
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission in India regarding information sought through Right to Information requests but not received. It summarizes previous requests and appeals filed with the Department of Legal Affairs in the Government of India and the Law Department of the Government of Bihar regarding frivolous legal cases filed against the appellant in 2010 and 2011. The appellant is seeking replies to 9 questions regarding the cases from the respondent departments.
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 regarding two court cases there. In the second appeal, the appellant argues that the responses received contained false or incomplete information, and requests that true and complete information be provided regarding details of the two court cases.
1. The appellant Gautam Navlakha appealed an order denying him statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The appellant had been arrested on October 28, 2018 and spent 34 days under house arrest until October 1, 2018 when the arrest was quashed by the Delhi High Court.
3. The appellant argued that the 34 days spent under house arrest should be counted as time in custody, which combined with subsequent periods of NIA and judicial custody would exceed the 90 day limit for filing a charge sheet under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
- The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking the release of her son from detention in Mathura jail.
- The Supreme Court disposed of the petition and directed that the case records be transmitted to the Allahabad High Court for further proceedings. However, due to the lockdown, only electronic copies of the case documents were sent.
- The Allahabad High Court registered the case based on the electronic records. Several adjournments have been granted at the request of the petitioner to amend the petition and implead parties. The court has now directed the case to be finally disposed of by August 24th.
Department of Justice Government of India forwarded RTI request bearing registration No.
JUSTC/R/2018/51094 to Patna High Court on 05.06.2018 for necessary action.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
This document summarizes a court case regarding conditions in correctional facilities in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry during the COVID-19 pandemic. It notes that high powered committees oversaw the facilities and reports were filed. While Tamil Nadu's situation was under control, Puducherry had an alarming positive case rate among inmates, though all but two have now recovered. The court ordered that decisions by the committees be published online, contact between inmates and lawyers be allowed via video, and that the matter return for review in a week.
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Yash Pal Singh, whose son was killed in an alleged encounter by police officers in 2002. The court noted that the case has been pending since then, and the police officers involved have not been properly investigated or prosecuted despite court orders. The court criticized the laxity of the state in defending its police officers. It directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs as interim costs to the petitioner, as he has been denied justice for 19 years. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 20th.
This document is a court ruling from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding a public interest litigation petition seeking action against two police constables who allegedly beat an auto rickshaw driver for not wearing a mask properly. The court notes previous orders directing police not to use corporal punishment for violations of COVID protocols. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the court directs the Superintendent of Police of Indore to take appropriate action on complaints of police excesses and beatings, including against the two respondents, and ensure disciplinary proceedings are concluded. The court reaffirms its prior order that citizens should not face beatings for protocol violations, and police should instead counsel people to follow protocols.
The document is a request for information filed under India's Right to Information Act regarding a case of non-implementation of section 7(1) of the RTI Act that resulted in the planned judicial murder of appellant Asha Rani Devi on November 11, 2017. The request seeks information from the Department of Justice on 8 questions related to a case in Begusarai court involving the appellant and accusations of a shielded magistrate. The request involves matters related to imminent danger to life and liberty and concerns cases filed in multiple states and the Supreme Court of India.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a bail petition. The respondent/accused, Faisal Farooq, is an educationist who runs several schools. He was granted bail in one case (FIR 134/2020), but was arrested the day of his scheduled release in another case (FIR 73/2020). The respondent's lawyer argued that the second arrest was mala fide to prevent his release. The court examined past judgments establishing that bail once granted should only be cancelled for cogent reasons. The chargesheet also indicates the respondent was not present at the site of the alleged offense. The court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to cancel the previously granted bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India regarding an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the Registrar to provide information on cases pending before the Supreme Court where judgments were reserved during 2007-2009. The High Court overturned the CIC's order and the order of the single judge upholding it. The Court found that under the Right to Information Act, a public authority is only required to provide information that is already available with it, and cannot be compelled to collate information in a particular form if it is not maintained that way. As the Supreme Court did not maintain the requested data in the form sought, the direction to provide that information was
1. This document summarizes a court case involving a writ petition filed by two lesbian petitioners (S. Sushma and U. Seema Agarval) seeking police protection from their parents.
2. The petitioners had fled from Madurai to Chennai to escape pressure and opposition from their parents regarding their lesbian relationship. Their parents had filed missing person reports with the police.
3. The court held in-camera hearings and counseling sessions with the petitioners and their parents to better understand the situation. It was found that the petitioners were clear about their relationship, while the parents were concerned about societal stigma and their daughters' safety.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
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 Presentation presents how Data science can bring manifold benefits to Retail Broking. Machine Learning & Text Analytics can impact your business in many positive ways- gives you that competitive edge and gains you customer satisfaction & loyalty
This document discusses optimizing designer pages on a fashion e-commerce site. It notes that designer names are among the top search terms and that designer pages are the highest value page type to engage new visitors. It recommends focusing on improving designer pages to enhance the user experience on mobile by reducing load times, which can negatively impact conversions and engagement. It then provides details on how site furniture and listing pages were implemented using various technologies like Webpack loaders and APIs.
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 regarding two court cases there. In the second appeal, the appellant argues that the responses received contained false or incomplete information, and requests that true and complete information be provided regarding details of the two court cases.
1. The appellant Gautam Navlakha appealed an order denying him statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The appellant had been arrested on October 28, 2018 and spent 34 days under house arrest until October 1, 2018 when the arrest was quashed by the Delhi High Court.
3. The appellant argued that the 34 days spent under house arrest should be counted as time in custody, which combined with subsequent periods of NIA and judicial custody would exceed the 90 day limit for filing a charge sheet under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
- The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking the release of her son from detention in Mathura jail.
- The Supreme Court disposed of the petition and directed that the case records be transmitted to the Allahabad High Court for further proceedings. However, due to the lockdown, only electronic copies of the case documents were sent.
- The Allahabad High Court registered the case based on the electronic records. Several adjournments have been granted at the request of the petitioner to amend the petition and implead parties. The court has now directed the case to be finally disposed of by August 24th.
Department of Justice Government of India forwarded RTI request bearing registration No.
JUSTC/R/2018/51094 to Patna High Court on 05.06.2018 for necessary action.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
This document summarizes a court case regarding conditions in correctional facilities in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry during the COVID-19 pandemic. It notes that high powered committees oversaw the facilities and reports were filed. While Tamil Nadu's situation was under control, Puducherry had an alarming positive case rate among inmates, though all but two have now recovered. The court ordered that decisions by the committees be published online, contact between inmates and lawyers be allowed via video, and that the matter return for review in a week.
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Yash Pal Singh, whose son was killed in an alleged encounter by police officers in 2002. The court noted that the case has been pending since then, and the police officers involved have not been properly investigated or prosecuted despite court orders. The court criticized the laxity of the state in defending its police officers. It directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs as interim costs to the petitioner, as he has been denied justice for 19 years. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 20th.
This document is a court ruling from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding a public interest litigation petition seeking action against two police constables who allegedly beat an auto rickshaw driver for not wearing a mask properly. The court notes previous orders directing police not to use corporal punishment for violations of COVID protocols. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the court directs the Superintendent of Police of Indore to take appropriate action on complaints of police excesses and beatings, including against the two respondents, and ensure disciplinary proceedings are concluded. The court reaffirms its prior order that citizens should not face beatings for protocol violations, and police should instead counsel people to follow protocols.
The document is a request for information filed under India's Right to Information Act regarding a case of non-implementation of section 7(1) of the RTI Act that resulted in the planned judicial murder of appellant Asha Rani Devi on November 11, 2017. The request seeks information from the Department of Justice on 8 questions related to a case in Begusarai court involving the appellant and accusations of a shielded magistrate. The request involves matters related to imminent danger to life and liberty and concerns cases filed in multiple states and the Supreme Court of India.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a bail petition. The respondent/accused, Faisal Farooq, is an educationist who runs several schools. He was granted bail in one case (FIR 134/2020), but was arrested the day of his scheduled release in another case (FIR 73/2020). The respondent's lawyer argued that the second arrest was mala fide to prevent his release. The court examined past judgments establishing that bail once granted should only be cancelled for cogent reasons. The chargesheet also indicates the respondent was not present at the site of the alleged offense. The court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to cancel the previously granted bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India regarding an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the Registrar to provide information on cases pending before the Supreme Court where judgments were reserved during 2007-2009. The High Court overturned the CIC's order and the order of the single judge upholding it. The Court found that under the Right to Information Act, a public authority is only required to provide information that is already available with it, and cannot be compelled to collate information in a particular form if it is not maintained that way. As the Supreme Court did not maintain the requested data in the form sought, the direction to provide that information was
1. This document summarizes a court case involving a writ petition filed by two lesbian petitioners (S. Sushma and U. Seema Agarval) seeking police protection from their parents.
2. The petitioners had fled from Madurai to Chennai to escape pressure and opposition from their parents regarding their lesbian relationship. Their parents had filed missing person reports with the police.
3. The court held in-camera hearings and counseling sessions with the petitioners and their parents to better understand the situation. It was found that the petitioners were clear about their relationship, while the parents were concerned about societal stigma and their daughters' safety.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
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 Presentation presents how Data science can bring manifold benefits to Retail Broking. Machine Learning & Text Analytics can impact your business in many positive ways- gives you that competitive edge and gains you customer satisfaction & loyalty
This document discusses optimizing designer pages on a fashion e-commerce site. It notes that designer names are among the top search terms and that designer pages are the highest value page type to engage new visitors. It recommends focusing on improving designer pages to enhance the user experience on mobile by reducing load times, which can negatively impact conversions and engagement. It then provides details on how site furniture and listing pages were implemented using various technologies like Webpack loaders and APIs.
Transformation structurelle et émergence au Sénégal - Madaniou DIEMEMadaniou DIEME
Dans un contexte marqué par la vision d’un Sénégal émergent (émergence économique) et la lutte contre la pauvreté (émergence sociale), l’étude sur la transformation structurelle pour l’émergence du Sénégal, trouve toute sa justification empirique et toute son actualité.
There are a lot of great things about the cloud, but the "destroy and rebuild" philosophy which is really good for building a continuous delivery pipeline, really sucks when applied to troubleshooting production problems. When your application goes haywire, the most valuable engineering skill is not the the ability to bring up a copy of your system or even the knowledge of your technology stack (although it doesn't hurt). It is the skill of understanding and solving problems.
Finding the root cause of the issue and mitigating it with minimal disruption in production is a must-have skill for engineers responsible for managing and maintaining production systems, which nowadays includes ops, dbas and devs alike. In this talk I will discuss the skills required to troubleshoot complex systems, traits that prevent engineers from being successful at troubleshooting and discuss some techniques and tips and trick for troubleshooting complex systems in production.
DevOpsDays Baltimore March 2017 - Continuous Integration: A bittersweet love ...Suzie Prince
This is the bittersweet story of Continuous Integration. CI is practice that we fell in love with, embraced and then never fully committed to. I’ll share with you the current state of CI, what we think we are doing when we say CI and what we are really doing in terms of CI. Then I’ll remind us all why we fell in love with CI in the first place and make some suggestions on how to get back to the good stuff.
Updated for 2017. Presented at DevOpsDays Baltimore 2017.
The document discusses various policies that governments can implement to protect the environment, including taxes, subsidies, laws, and regulations. It provides definitions for each: environmental taxes increase the cost of polluting goods, subsidies make green goods cheaper, laws ban harmful products, and regulations impose rules to reduce pollution. The document aims to help students understand these policy options and how governments use them to encourage sustainable growth while protecting the environment. It provides examples of these policies in practice and discusses their potential impacts and effectiveness.
Upfront LP Survey of the Venture Capital & Startup IndustryMark Suster
Upfront Ventures surveyed Limited Partners (LPs) on their outlook on the venture capital markets and the underlying technology startups we back. This presentation created in Q1 2017 shares this outlook.
Asynchronous API in Java8, how to use CompletableFutureJosé Paumard
Slides of my talk as Devoxx 2015. How to set up asynchronous data processing pipelines using the CompletionStage / CompletableFuture API, including how to control threads and how to handle exceptions.
Didáctica de las ciencias sociales y de la geografía para la sustentabilidadJoselyn Sanchez
Este documento presenta los objetivos y conceptos de un curso de educación geográfica impartido en la Escuela Normal Experimental de El Fuerte “Miguel Castillo Cruz” en Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México en febrero de 2017. El curso busca desarrollar el pensamiento espacial del alumno, analizar las relaciones naturales con la cultura, y enseñar conceptos geodidácticos para la sustentabilidad, incluyendo el entorno local y la escala geográfica.
Didáctica de las ciencias sociales y de la geografía para la sustentabilidad
Similar to 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
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Notification of defects letter D.NO. 840/2017/X dated 22.03.2017 is being emailed by the Registrar Section X on 27.03.2017 to the petitioner. Petitioner Cured the notified defects and Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion vide D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017 with six paper books for two applications separately.
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
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.
The document is an application filed in the Supreme Court of India appealing a lodgment order dated 16.02.2017 issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court refusing to register a writ petition. The application argues that the Registrar misapplied the law and abused their powers by refusing registration, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights. It requests that the Supreme Court allow correction of the application and pass any other order deemed just in the interests of justice.
Acknowledgement letter dated 22.07.2017 by Hon'ble President of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
This document provides the status of a grievance registration filed with the President's Secretariat. The grievance was filed by Widow Asha Rani Devi on July 22, 2017 regarding dismissal orders and cases related to violations of procedures by the Supreme Court of India. The grievance was forwarded to the Department of Justice and the case status is now closed. Feedback on the case was marked as "Poor".
This document provides information about pending whistleblower applications in an ongoing judicial matter. It notes that the whistleblower/applicant has 10 pending applications in the case that have yet to be decided, dating back to 2011. These applications include requests for records, to add parties to the case, and to present evidence. The document calls for the applications to be decided in sequential order so that the whistleblower can properly present evidence in the matter involving alleged criminal conspiracy. It also discusses how a pending probate case could impact the whistleblower's ability to prosecute the case depending on the determination of his locus standi or legal standing.
The petitioner challenged a second proceeding initiated against her by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner, despite an earlier tribunal opinion finding she was not a foreigner. The court allows the petition, setting aside the second opinion as violating the Supreme Court ruling that the principle of res judicata applies to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. As the petitioner's identity was the same in both proceedings and the tribunal made no finding she was different than the earlier proceedee, the second proceeding against the same person cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be released if detained under the second, now set aside, opinion.
1) The appellant Maj. Ravindran had filed an RTI application with the Delhi High Court seeking information related to a petition filed by DCM Financial Services Ltd.
2) He was asked to pay a fee of Rs. 490 for the application which he refused as his initial application was filed before new fees were notified.
3) The Central Information Commission heard the appeal and determined that the information should be provided free of cost as the High Court had agreed to respond free of charge for applications filed before the new notification. However, a copy of the petition could not be provided as the matter was still ongoing in court.
Second appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Patna High court dated 03.11.2016 be...Om Prakash Poddar
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.
Urgency Letter to Registrar Misc. Supreme Court of India dated 30.05.2017Om Prakash Poddar
The petitioner filed an appeal by way of motion against a lodgment order issued by the Supreme Court registrar. The petitioner is seeking the status of this appeal, as it was filed in February 2017 but has not been converted to a registered case or listed before the court. The petitioner notes defects were notified in the appeal filings, which have since been cured. Due to a lack of transparency on the court's website, the petitioner does not know the status of the appeal and is under stress without this information. The petitioner requests information on the status of the appeal against the lodgment order.
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.
The court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal to pass a reasoned order after reviewing the records of two previous cases regarding the petitioner's citizenship status. An earlier opinion declaring the petitioner not a foreigner lacked reasons and was therefore not a valid basis for the principle of res judicata to apply. However, in the interest of justice, the court ordered the Tribunal to consider materials from both previous cases and issue a new reasoned ruling, while no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until then. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
RTI dated 7.12.22 against suppression of Gang Rape matter.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Supreme Court of India is main accused in Non Bail able Warrant and Gang Rape matter W.P.(Crl.) D.NO. 18546/2022. Sixteen petitions (SLP. Writ, Review, Curative and M.A) have been filed against interlinked with this matter since 2012 to till date, yet no rescue of 18 year ago kidnapped pregnant wife Rina Kumari (Guddi) and abducted unseen minor daughter from the clutches of sex Abusers State by Supreme Court of India and Union of India as on date
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Karuna Shankar against the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding her application for premature release that had been pending for over 3 years without justification. The Court directed the Director General of Prisons to ensure Shankar's application is considered and disposed of within a month and to file an affidavit of compliance. It warned of coercive action if further instances of authorities delaying such applications are found.
Defects Cure letter dated 19.09.2018 to section x SC Om Prakash Poddar
The petitioner filed a misc. application that was objected to by the Branch Officer for including improper prayers B and C. The petitioner then redrafted those prayers and refiled the application. However, the Branch Officer is now instructing the petitioner over the phone to remove those key prayers from the application. The petitioner refuses to do so as it would invalidate the application. The petitioner questions why the application has not been properly processed or listed for hearing according to the rules.
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.
SC judge fines petitioner Rs0.1m for wasting 13 years of opponent in fake caseGibran Ashraf
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitioner's leave to appeal against orders of lower courts regarding succession certificates. The Court found the petitioner had abused the court process by filing frivolous litigation over many years in order to pursue a private vendetta. The Court imposed costs of 100,000 rupees on the petitioner for wasting court time and harassing the other party with baseless claims. The costs must be deposited within 3 months or will be recovered as a money decree with monthly interest.
Similar to 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 (20)
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.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
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.
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.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
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/
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>.
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?.
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.
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
2. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 2/10
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 (JI) 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.
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.
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 (JI), 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 Act2005. 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
3. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 3/10
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?
Requested Information: 4.)
Why the Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar (JI) 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 (JI) 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 (JI) 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 (JI) of this
Hon’ble Court has misconceived that the petitioners are re
agitating the same petition while the petitioners have been
4. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 4/10
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 PetitionerinPerson
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 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 petitionerinperson on
18.01.2017 and the same was placed before the Ld. Registrar
(JI) 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, PetitionerinPerson
was informed vide Order dated 28.01.2017 of Ld. Registrar.
The same was delivered by hand to the petitionerinperson
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
5. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 5/10
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.
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 Delhi110004
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, Patna800015
4. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.04
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna800028
7. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 7/10
(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.
(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
8. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 8/10
irreparable damage, loss and illegal
confinement.
(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 of Law and protecting the bad elements of
state apparatus.
9. 3/7/2017 Gmail FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=pt&search=sent&th=15aa8b102c5754c2&siml=15aa8b102c5754c2 9/10
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 (JI) of this Hon’ble
Court.
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.