Written submission for hearing D.NO.183721

•

0 likes•761 views

This document is a written submission filed on behalf of the appellant Om Prakash Poddar regarding an appeal before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. The submission argues that the failure to provide information in a previous Right to Information request led to the planned murder of appellant's wife Asha Rani Devi. It requests the Information Commissioner to order the respondent department to provide the information sought in the second appeal and to take punitive action against the Central Public Information Officer for delays. The matter is linked to other appeals previously filed regarding the murder. The appellant fears that further delays in this case could lead to his own murder.

1 of 3
FILING INDEX
IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO.402, 4TH
FLOOR, CIC BHAWAN, BABA GANG NATH
MARG, MUNIRKA, NEW DELHI-110067
(WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR HEARING OF F.NO.
CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/183721 BEFORE INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER, CIC, NEW DELHI)
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH PODDAR ……….APPELLANT
VERSUS
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, …… RESPONDENT
JUSTICE AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
S.N Particulars Pages
1. Written submission for hearing of
F.NO. CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/183721
2-3
Appellant no.01 in Person
Filed on: 11.03.2018 on behalf of Appellant No.02
D.NO. 613877 Om Prakash
RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077, Dwarka Sector-08
Mob:9968337815 Email:om.poddar@gmail.com
We have recevied the Link Paper/Compliance/Non-Compliance & Email has been sent
on Applicant email Id.Your Diary no. is : 613877

2 of 3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR HEARING OF F.NO.
CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/183721 BEFORE INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER, CIC, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH PODDAR ……….APPELLANT
VERSUS
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, …… RESPONDENT
JUSTICE AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Deputy Secretary-Cum-CPIO Law
Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat, Patna-800015
To
The information Commissioner, CIC,
New Delhi, India
MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That non-implementation of section
7(1) of RTI Act 2005 against Second Appeal vide
D.NO. 183722 of 2016 and vide D. NO. 170189 of
2017 by CIC, New Delhi has resulted in planned
judicial murder of Appellant No.02 Smt. Asha
Rani Devi on 11.11.2017. The F.NO.
CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/183721 is interlinked with
above mentioned matters filed before CIC, New
Delhi.
2. The material evidences of planned
judicial murder of Appellant No.02 Smt. Asha
Rani Devi have been filed as Written Submission
vide D.NO. 160115 dated 30.08.2017; vide D.NO.
181770 dated 08.12.2017; vide D.NO. 100707 dated
03.01.2018 and vide D.NO. 611990 & 611991 dated
12.02.2018 before Chief of CIC New Delhi at
the time of hearing of Complaint No.

3 of 3
CIC/MOLAJ/C/2016/299945; Appeal No.
CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/113204; Appeal No.
CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/122864 and Appeal No.
CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/139611.
3. That the delay in supplying
information against F.NO. CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/183721
by CIC New Delhi would cause another Planned
judicial Murder of Appellant No.01 shri OM
PRAKASH as it is interlinked with above
mentioned matters filed before CIC and heard by
CIC.
PRAYER
In the above premises, it is prayed that the
Information Commissioner of CIC India may be
pleased:
(i) To pass an order with appropriate
punitive action against CPIO to supply
the requisite information sought in
the second appeal.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
Om Prakash
Appellant No.01
On behalf of Appellant No.02
S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar
Rented R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg
Raj Nagar, Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077 Mob: 9968337815
Email: om.poddar@gmail.com
NEW DELHI:
Filed on: 11.03.2018
Diary No: 613877

This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.

Second appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Department of legal affairs dated 3....

Om Prakash Poddar

Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High Court

Om Prakash Poddar

Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...

Om Prakash Poddar

Final moot problem 2012

siddhesh20sep

The document summarizes a moot court competition problem regarding two writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India. The first petition challenges provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act that criminalize poverty and led to the arrest of a widow and her children. The second petition seeks a declaration that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers Act applies uniformly across India to rehabilitate and support manual scavengers like the widow. Both petitions will be argued at a final hearing where all questions of law and maintainability will be considered.

Second Appeal against CIC New Delhi for Non-Implementation of Section 7(1) of...

Om Prakash Poddar

Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of India

Om Prakash Poddar

Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.

65 b certificate format

MukulThakur36

This notice informs the appellant and respondent of a hearing scheduled before the Central Information Commission to hear an appeal regarding an RTI application. Both parties as well as the CPIO are directed to attend the hearing on July 23, 2018 at 12:15 PM to present their cases. Instructions are provided regarding written submissions, authorization of representatives, proof of identity, and other procedural details for the hearing.

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016

Om Prakash Poddar

Revenue acts

bansi default

This document summarizes the procedures for alienation, assignment, and transfer of state government lands in India. It outlines the following key points: 1) Alienation of land means granting state land for public purposes to individuals/organizations on payment of market value or concession. Applications must follow the prescribed form and procedures in relevant orders. 2) Assignment of land means granting unused waste or poramboke lands to landless individuals, with priority given to landless agricultural laborers. The Mandal Revenue Officer can assign up to 2.5 acres of wetland or 5 acres of dryland. 3) State lands can be transferred between government departments by the Collector, or to central departments, up to 0.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan

Anubhuti Shreya

This memorial addresses three issues in a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal case. The first issue is whether the special leave petition is maintainable, arguing that there was no grave injustice or ignorance of substantial questions of law by the High Court. The second issue is whether consent was given voluntarily, arguing that consent was given freely without force or misconception. The third issue is whether the respondent is punishable for rape, arguing that the essential elements of rape were not met. The memorial provides arguments for each issue and submits that the petition should be dismissed.

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.

True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

Om Prakash Poddar

Rti application form

Arulsiva

This document contains an application form for requesting information under the Right to Information Act. The form requests the applicant's personal details such as name, address, and whether they belong to a below poverty line category. It also asks for details of the information being requested such as the subject matter, relevant time period, specific details of the information, and whether the information is needed by post or in person. The form confirms if the applicant agrees to pay any fees, has deposited application fees if required, and whether the information is already publicly available from the authority. It includes acknowledgement sections for the receiving office to fill out.

Court formats

RAHULCHOUDHURY

W.p.(c) 5653-2021(main)

Vikrant Goyal

The document appears to be a writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court along with supporting documents. It provides details of a contract awarded to Gaurav Enterprises by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on June 23, 2020 to provide human resource outsourcing services. Issues arose regarding anonymous complaints received by ICAR, and on October 29, 2020 ICAR informed Gaurav Enterprises that their contract was being cancelled, though they were asked to continue providing services for 45 more days. Gaurav Enterprises challenged the cancellation through this writ petition.

Land acquisition rules

Jamesadhikaram land matter consultancy 9447464502

Complaint against Advocates to Bar Council of Bihar

Om Prakash Poddar

1. The petitioner Om Prakash filed a complaint against two advocates - Gopal Kumar and Dhirendra Prasad - for pursuing frivolous criminal litigation against him and his elderly mother. 2. Advocate Gopal Kumar had obtained a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner while he was caring for his ailing mother in the hospital. Advocate Gopal Kumar also filed two additional criminal cases despite a previous case being settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013. 3. Advocate Dhirendra Prasad threatened the petitioner and his mother with criminal charges if they did not apologize for a notice issued regarding their bank account and pension. 4. The petitioner requests appropriate action be taken against the advocates for

Authority CPC order 7 rule 11

Arjun Randhir

This document provides a summary of 20 legal cases related to the rejection of plaints under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Some of the key principles laid down in the cases include: 1) A plaint can be rejected if it is not maintainable, does not disclose a cause of action, or is manifestly meritless or vexatious. 2) The question of court fees payable is decided based on the allegations in the plaint, not subsequent evidence or statements. 3) The plaintiff is generally free to value the relief sought in their own estimation for determining jurisdiction and court fees. 4) A plaint cannot be rejected solely on the basis of

Shiv kumar bail order

ZahidManiyar

Shiv Kumar applied for regular bail in a case registered against him under various sections of IPC including rioting, assaulting a public servant, and attempt to murder. The court notes that a co-accused, Naudeep Kaur, was granted bail by the High Court. Considering this, the court grants bail to Shiv Kumar as well on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 100,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions that he not influence witnesses or leave the country without permission. The order is without prejudice to the merits of the case.

Notice of taking deposition

Cocoselul Inaripat

This document contains notices for the deposition of Traian Bujduveanu in a civil case. The first notice schedules the deposition for October 10, 2011 at 9:00am. The second cancels that deposition and reschedules it for November 11, 2011 at 9:00am. The third notice reschedules the deposition again for December 5, 2011 at 2:00pm. Certificates of non-appearance are included, stating that Bujduveanu failed to appear for the depositions scheduled for November 11, 2011 and December 5, 2011.

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.

Judgments of Supreme Court of India on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substa...

Legal

subdivisión de predios rústicos (demanda Chile Rural / SAG))

ClculoEstructuralArq

Civil assignment

Adha Hisham

Ramadhan is seeking to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy irregularities in his application against Syawal. Order 1A allows courts to consider justice over technical non-compliance. However, the document analyzes several cases that have found Order 1A cannot be used to override mandatory rules or cure intentional non-compliance. As Ramadhan failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisites in Order 6 Rule 7(2A) for renewing his writ, it is unlikely the court would allow him to invoke Order 1A in this case.

District Office Manual- T J Joseph Additional Tahsildar Meenachil.2014

Tahsildar Meenachil. Kottayam Kerala.

This document provides guidelines for office procedures and correspondence in government departments. It defines key terms related to document management like tappal, current, case, file, and disposal. It describes the process of receiving, registering, and distributing communications. It also outlines procedures for drafting correspondence, noting cases, referencing documents, and linking files. The document covers various forms of correspondence like letters, proceedings, memorandums and their appropriate uses. Overall, the document serves as a manual to standardize procedures in government offices.

Court visit assignment to enhance professional experience

ishaqnaeem

Written Submission for Hearing D.NO.119689

Om Prakash Poddar

First Appeal dated 16.03.2018 against CIC

Om Prakash Poddar

First Appeal against misleading RTI reply by Mr. Krishan Talwar, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, CIC New Delhi pertaining to Life and liberty of an underground Appellant in the garb of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 CPIO says, "advise, response to queries/questions, opinion, reason are not covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005". However, RTI request is very much covered under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. As per the definition of section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005, Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 reads as "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.

What's hot

Notice of hearing for Appeal No.126308 by CIC

Om Prakash Poddar

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016

Om Prakash Poddar

Revenue acts

bansi default

State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan

Anubhuti Shreya

Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...

Om Prakash Poddar

True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

Om Prakash Poddar

Rti application form

Arulsiva

Court formats

RAHULCHOUDHURY

W.p.(c) 5653-2021(main)

Vikrant Goyal

Land acquisition rules

Jamesadhikaram land matter consultancy 9447464502

Complaint against Advocates to Bar Council of Bihar

Om Prakash Poddar

Authority CPC order 7 rule 11

Arjun Randhir

Shiv kumar bail order

ZahidManiyar

Notice of taking deposition

Cocoselul Inaripat

Second appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Patna High court dated 03.11.2016 be...

Om Prakash Poddar

Judgments of Supreme Court of India on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substa...

Legal

subdivisión de predios rústicos (demanda Chile Rural / SAG))

ClculoEstructuralArq

Civil assignment

Adha Hisham

District Office Manual- T J Joseph Additional Tahsildar Meenachil.2014

Tahsildar Meenachil. Kottayam Kerala.

Court visit assignment to enhance professional experience

ishaqnaeem

What's hot (20)

Notice of hearing for Appeal No.126308 by CIC

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016

Revenue acts

State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan

Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...

True copy of SLP (C) No. 9854 of 2012

Rti application form

Court formats

W.p.(c) 5653-2021(main)

Land acquisition rules

Complaint against Advocates to Bar Council of Bihar

Authority CPC order 7 rule 11

Shiv kumar bail order

Notice of taking deposition

Second appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Patna High court dated 03.11.2016 be...

Judgments of Supreme Court of India on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substa...

subdivisión de predios rústicos (demanda Chile Rural / SAG))

Civil assignment

District Office Manual- T J Joseph Additional Tahsildar Meenachil.2014

Court visit assignment to enhance professional experience

Similar to Written submission for hearing D.NO.183721

Written Submission for Hearing D.NO.119689

Om Prakash Poddar

First Appeal dated 16.03.2018 against CIC

Om Prakash Poddar

Written Submission for Hearing dated 03.01.2018

Om Prakash Poddar

Reply of FAA CIC dated 19.03.2018

Om Prakash Poddar

CIC Order dated 16.01.2018 against SC

Om Prakash Poddar

The document is an order from the Central Information Commission regarding an appeal filed by Asha Rani Devi about the non-registration of a writ petition. The order summarizes that the appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the refusal of registration, to which the CPIO and FAA responded. In the hearing, the appellant argued the information sought was administrative in nature, while the respondent argued it asked for a legal opinion which is not covered by the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the respondent's initial response was satisfactory and no further intervention was required.

Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SC

Om Prakash Poddar

Rti dated 06.10.2018 against SC

Om Prakash Poddar

The document details an RTI request filed by Om Prakash seeking information about the status of a criminal appeal petition he had filed with the Supreme Court of India regarding the suspicious death of Asha Rani Devi. The petition raised several defects that Mr. Prakash claims to have cured, but the registry is no longer responding to inquiries about the petition's status and the file seems to be missing. Through this RTI, Mr. Prakash is seeking a positive or negative reply from the registry on the registration of the criminal appeal and any actions taken regarding the petition.

Criminal M.P. D.NO.22539 dated 18.06.2018 before SC

Om Prakash Poddar

Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18

National Citizens Movement

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.

Writ Petition Criminal diary no. 18546 of 2022 Part-II .pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

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.

Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...

Om Prakash Poddar

Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)

sabrangsabrang

The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.

Order dated 09.03.2018 against SC

Om Prakash Poddar

Petition 242 of 2021.pdf

OmPrakashPoddar1

The writ petition concerns a case of alleged child sexual abuse, forced hidden prostitution of minor girls, human trafficking, and illicit sex trade reported by the petitioner whistleblower to authorities. The petitioner reported the incident to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th April 2021. On 13th April 2021, an official from NCPCR responded requesting more details from the petitioner within 3 days to take immediate action. However, the petitioner alleges he was unlawfully detained by Delhi Police for blowing the whistle on the case and filing reports to rescue and rehabilitate the minor victims. He now seeks intervention from the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Petition against child sexual abuse and hidden prostitution before Supreme Co...

OmPrakashPoddar1

Third True Copy of SLP Civil No. 19073 of 2013 before SC

Om Prakash Poddar

True Copy of SLP Civil No. 9483 of 2013 before SC

Om Prakash Poddar

Final writ petition_for_filing-pb singh vs. state of maharashtra

sabrangsabrang

This writ petition concerns allegations of corruption against Anil Deshmukh, the Home Minister of Maharashtra. The petitioner, an IPS officer, alleges that Deshmukh instructed police officers to collect Rs. 100 crores per month from establishments in Mumbai. The petitioner further alleges that after raising concerns about Deshmukh's conduct, he was arbitrarily transferred from his role as Mumbai Police Commissioner in violation of rules regarding minimum tenure. The petitioner seeks a CBI investigation into Deshmukh's alleged corruption and directives to protect the petitioner's fundamental rights.

CIC Order dated 08.12.2017

Om Prakash Poddar

1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about why his application for urgent mentioning before the Chief Justice of India was not listed. 2. The CPIO and FAA responded to the appellant but he filed a second appeal to the Central Information Commission. 3. At the hearing, the respondent argued that the information sought was in the nature of a legal query and opinion, which is not covered by the RTI Act. They also cited a Supreme Court stay on disclosing information about complaints against judges. 4. The Commission found that the respondent had provided satisfactory information in response to the RTI application and no further intervention was required. The appeal was disposed of.

Final status of PRSEC/E/2018/18152 dated 09.10.2018

Om Prakash Poddar

The complainant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that the Supreme Court registry raised defects against, including objectionable remarks, and though the complainant responded the registry is now not responding to inquiries about the petition's status. The complainant is seeking a response from the registry on whether the Criminal Appeal will be registered or what action has been taken, and included copies of correspondence regarding curing defects for the President's Secretariat to take appropriate action.

Similar to Written submission for hearing D.NO.183721 (20)

Written Submission for Hearing D.NO.119689

First Appeal dated 16.03.2018 against CIC

Written Submission for Hearing dated 03.01.2018

Reply of FAA CIC dated 19.03.2018

CIC Order dated 16.01.2018 against SC

Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SC

Rti dated 06.10.2018 against SC

Criminal M.P. D.NO.22539 dated 18.06.2018 before SC

Urgent whistleblower information as filed 14.05.18

Writ Petition Criminal diary no. 18546 of 2022 Part-II .pdf

Second Appeal dated 21.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Non-disclosure of...

Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)

Order dated 09.03.2018 against SC

Petition 242 of 2021.pdf

Petition against child sexual abuse and hidden prostitution before Supreme Co...

Third True Copy of SLP Civil No. 19073 of 2013 before SC

True Copy of SLP Civil No. 9483 of 2013 before SC

Final writ petition_for_filing-pb singh vs. state of maharashtra

CIC Order dated 08.12.2017

Final status of PRSEC/E/2018/18152 dated 09.10.2018

More from Om Prakash Poddar

Reply to Election Commission Delhi in NGS5322435639 dated 25.11.2022.pdf

Om 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.pdf

Om 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

Letter dated 27.11.2022 to CJI SC.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

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

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.pdf

Om 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.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

Letter dated 24.11.2022 to CJI.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

Letter dated 23.11.2022 to CJI.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

Letter dated 22.11.2022 to Branch Officer Section 10 at Supreme Court of Ind...

Om Prakash Poddar

Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...

Om Prakash Poddar

Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...

Om Prakash Poddar

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

Complaint dated 21.11.2022 against Bihar and Delhi police to NHRC.pdf

Om 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.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

Complaint aginst Delhi Police to NHRC New Delhi dated 20.11.22.pdf

Om 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.

Complaint aginst Kadwa Katihar Bihar Police to SHRC Bihar dated 20.11.22.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

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.

Writ Petition Criminal Diary Number 18546 of 2022 Part-I .pdf

Om 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.

NHRC cases-2.pdf

Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)