Be in touch with me to think something revolutionary and work accordingly....

Sunday, 29 May 2016

A FRESH WRIT PETITION WILL BE FILED IN THE PATNA HIGH COURT

This facebook status is exclusively dedicated to those friends who take a keen interest to know about current position of my High Court case against Chiranjiwi Roy,Presently Principal of JNV Samastipur,but going to be transferred to JNV Vaishali.

Chronological Events of the case are as follows:-

(1) Dated 27/02/2013-After the case being closed by the Bihar State Human Rights Commission,the Case vide CWJC No.4261/2013 was registered in the High Court of Patna on dated 26/02/2013.The case came up for hearing on next day i.e.27/02/2013.It happens in very few cases in the High Court that cases come up for hearing on next day without mentioning and showing urgency,but the Advocate for the petitioner (My advocate) didn't appear to press the Writ Petition.Advocate for the Principal and NVS appeared before the Court.It was directed by the presiding Judge Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah to list the case after one week before the appropriate bench.It appears that my advocate got managed by the Principal, so he didn't appear.It was my father who had kept the advocate.I didn't want to keep advocate and wanted to appear In-Person.If i would appear In-Person, then perhaps i would be most youngest person to appear In-Person in any higher judiciary.It was non-understanding of my father.

(2) Dated 22/05/2015-Chiranjiwi Roy filed his 80 paged Counter Affidavit against my Writ Petition in the High Court.In his Counter Affidavit, he inter alia submitted that i was suffering from some kind of mental ailment,so my father requested to issue SLC,accordingly SLC was issued to me.He also wants to say that due to some kind of mental ailment,i used to assault that boy sexually and otherwise.It is totally a baseless argument by Chiranjiwi Roy to save himself,because there is no material available on record which can even indicate that i had some kind of mental ailment of sexual nature.I had been repeatedly tortured by some teachers,students and principal,due to that i was facing psychological problems having mind in terrible figure, as it was remarked by a psychiatric of the PMCH. Further i faced very little slow blood pressure and same had been cured even before dated 23/08/2011,when i reported to JNV Samastipur after taking leave after admission in class eleventh on dated 06/07/2011 and ran away to NVS Headquarter,New Delhi on dated 24/08/2011 and made complaint against Chiranjiwi Roy,but SLC was issued on dated 28/09/2011.I am in possession of both medical reports.I drafted my Reply Affidavit against the Counter Affidavit of Chiranjiwi Roy.My draft reply was amended and make typed by the advocate,but it was not filed by the advocate in the Court.Since he was already managed,he didn't file my reply affidavit. Considering that the advocate has been managed,i decided to appear In-Person and it was told to the advocate to inform me whenever the case is listed for hearing.

(3) Dated 06/01/2016-Though being directed by the judge to list after one week,the case came up for hearing on dated 06/01/2016 after a long gap.The advocate informed me at around 8 AM of dated 06/01/2016 that today is my hearing.I was at my village in connection with the matter of Proposed Embankment Construction Without Land Acquisition in my village and surrounding areas.I was too busy in this land acquisition matter.I accompanied by villages met the Special Land Acquisition Officer,Kosi Project,Darbhanga and the Collector, Darbhanga on dated 05/01/2016.The Executive Engineer,Flood Control Division-2,Jhanjharpur was directed by the Collector to visit my village within 2-3 days and take land on lease from the affected farmers and if farmers don't give land on lease,then construct embankment only after land acquisition.It was expedient to organize the meeting of affected farmers in order to decide as to land should be given on lease or not.Accordingly, i returned to my village on the same day without staying at Darbhanga.I was so busy in this land acquisition that i couldn't check status online of my case on the official website of the Patna High Court.The case had actually been listed on dated 05/01/2016 at Serial No.40,as it traced by looking cause list of dated 05/01/2016,but came up for hearing on dated 06/01/2016 when it was at Serial No.18.The advocate came to know the listing of my case on dated 05/01/2016 but he informed me in the morning of dated 06/01/2016.If i would be informed on dated 05/01/2016,i would depart to Patna from Darbhanga and appear In-Person on dated 06/01/2016.In such circumstances, i suggested the advocate to appear before the court and inform the court that the petitioner Rahul Kumar will appear In-Person from the next date and pray for the next date.Since the advocate was already managed,he didn't appear before the Court despite repeated calls of the court.It was the second time when the advocate didn't appear.The petition got D.F.D.(Dismissed for Default) for want of prosecution.

(4) Dated 19/01/2016-Restoration Application was filed in the High Court to restore CWJC Case No.4261/2013 on dated 19/01/2016.The advocate showed his own reasons of non-appearance twice on dated 27/02/2013 and dated 06/01/2016 and he filed at his own expense.After filing restoration application,it caused very delay in getting Case No. and the restoration application got its MJC Case No.852/2016 after being registered on dated 02/03/2016 only after issuance of legal notice by me to the advocate against his professional misconduct for his intentionally non-appearance twice.

(5) Dated 20/04/2016-Restoration Application vide MJC No.852/2016 came up for hearing on dated 20/04/2016.Fortunately,i was already in Patna on this day in connection with filing of writ petition in the Patna High Court against Embankment Cconstruction Without Land Acquisition Matter,which now bears CWJC Case No.7529/2016.The advocate appeared for arguments before the bench of Justice Kishore Kumar Mandal and i also remained present,but the court dismissed the restoration application considering that on two occasions the petitioner defaulted in appearing on calls.Actually if the advocate for the petitioner is defaulted in appearing,then it is deemed that the petitioner defaulted because it is the case of the petitioner,not of his advocate.However, Res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC has not been applied and liberty has been provided to me to file a fresh writ petition if the cause survives.The advocate told that he will file the fresh writ petition at his own expense.Accordingly, i signed on affidavit and vakalatnama.He has not filed yet the fresh writ petition.If he files,then whenever it will come up for hearing,i will appear In-Person.If he doesn't file,then i shall file only after being economically competent to file.Means,after my own income,not of family.

LikeShow more reactions

Comment Share

20You, Santosh Sudhanshu, Aditya Krishna and 17 others

Comments

Rahul Kumar Chandan Kumar Navodayan Neeraj Singh Braj Bhushan Dubey Shivam Bhardwaj Sudarshan Jha

LikeReply2Yesterday at 6:35am

Kumar Gaurav then what will be the next procedure

UnlikeReply18 hrs

Rahul Kumar replied1 Reply

Rahul Kumar Kumar Gaurav
Next procedure is mentioned in the status and same is reproduced below for your kind information-

"However, Res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC has not been applied (by the High Court) and liberty has been provided to me to file a fresh writ petition if the cause survives.The advocate told that he will file the fresh writ petition at his own expense.Accordingly, i signed on affidavit and vakalatnama.He has not filed yet the fresh writ petition.If he files,then whenever it will come up for hearing,i will appear In-Person.If he doesn't file,then i shall file (a fresh writ petition) only after being economically competent to file.Means,after my own income,not of family.

UnlikeReply13 hrs

Write a comment...

Friday, 12 February 2016

SPEECH ON RTI ACT,2005

Rahul Kumar with Prasenjeet Kumar Aisa and 46 others.

1 hr

SPEECH ON RTI ACT,2005

You may please watch this video of dt 08/02/2016 pertaining to my speech as a guest speaker on Problems and Challenges of RTI Act,2005 at Seminar Hall,Hindu College,Delhi University.

At the outset,i extend my gratitude to Raja Choudhary Ji to suggest my name to the organiser of this Seminar to invite me as one of four guest speakers of this Seminar and also for assisting in organising this Seminar.

I also extend my gratitude to Arshad Nihal Ji,who is the president of NSS,Hindu College Unit and his team who organised this Seminar.

I further extend my gratitude to Jagannath Jaggu Ji,who promoted my participation as a speaker on facebook.

I can't forget to extend my gratitude to Er Rajesh Amarnath Bhaijee,who expressed his desire to watch video of my Speech.Hence this video is being uploaded on facebook.

What i expressed in speech is that-

1.Answer Sheets be provided at Rs 2 per page.Providing Answer Sheets at Rs 2000 per subject by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga and at Rs 100 per subject plus Rs 2 per page by Bihar School Examination Board is wrong and i have made complaint against same to the Bihar State Information Commission.

2.Section 2(f) of RTI Act,2005 provides definition of information.Public Information Officers misuse order of Bombay High Court in the matter of Celsa Pinto vs Goa State Information Commission. In this order,the court barred to provide information of such questions asked in the sense of why,which amount to departmental justification.But Public Information Officers even don't provide information of such questions asked in the sense of why, which don't amount to departmental justification, but relate to legal binding and legal obligation.I referred to my RTI application (also of three others filed under my guidance) sought information as to what are reasons behind non-establishment of body of Lokpal and it was replied by the PMO (DOPT) that reasons can't be provided under RTI Act ,2005.But in Celsa Pinto Case,it has not been barred to provide reasons.In regard to our query how non-establishment of body of Lokpal should not be treated as Govt Negligence, it was replied that opinion can't be provided under RTI Act,2005 but the definition of information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act,2005 within its fold also contains opinion.

3.Right to inspection u/s 2(j)(i) of RTI Act,2005 consists inspection of work,records and documents.No fee for inspection of work has been provided under rule 4 of the Right to Information Rules,2012.In such circumstances,if a person wants to inspect a work like MNREGA just like an officer,then how he will be able to inspect that work?

4.Even an illiterate citizen can seek information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act,2005 by submitting query orally before the Public Information Officer and the Public Information Officer will reduce his query in writing.This provision is same like section 154 of the CrPC that a person can submit oral information before police officer to lodge FIR and police officer will reduce it in writing.

5.u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act,2005 there should be no Form or Format for seeking information.Fixing Form by Bihar Govt under Bihar RTI Rules,2005 is violative of section 6(1) of the Act.u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act,2005 information should anyway be provided within 30 days.But under the Bihar RTI Rules,2005,a receipt form is provided to the applicant which mentions for the applicant to appear before the Public Information Officer on a specified date within of thirty days.In case of non-appearance on the specified date,the Public Information Officer will not be held responsible for delay in providing information. But section 7(1) of the RTI Act doesn't provide about such appearance on a specified date,rather this section mandates to provide information within thirty days and makes Public Information Officer responsible for delay in writing information.

6.Section 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005 mandates public authority to transfer RTI Application to such another Public Authority to whom the Application relates or more closely relates.There are many examples when the Public Information Officer doesn't transfer RTI Application.
I referred to my RTI Application filed before IISER,Bhopal, which stated that admission is conducted by Joint Admission Committee of IISERs,but refused to transfer my application to the Joint Admission Committee of IISERs.Cut off,merit list and result list for admission in IISER, Bhopal are not publically declared,hence RTI application was filed before IISER Bhopal.

7.Under section 19(6) of the RTI Act,2005 First Appeal should be disposed of within forty five days.But there is no time limit for disposal of Second Appeal filed before the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions.Also,there is no time limit for disposal of Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Time limit for disposal of second appeal and complaint be fixed.People got discouraged against filing second appeal and complaint if they know that there is no time limit for disposal of second appeal and complaint.Please note that section 19(6) has been addressed as section 19(3) and it's slip of tongue.I referred to facts that many complaints (i.e.6 complaints) filed by me were disposed of by the Central Information Commission after one year.

8.u/s section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005,the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions are empowered to impose fine against erring Public Information Officers who refuse to provide information or provide misleading,false or incomplete information or delay in providing information. But fine imposed by Commission is collected/levied by Govt.But it is clear u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005 that fine must be collected/levied by Commission, not by Govt.Even after imposition of fine against Public Information Officers by Commission,many times Govt don't collect/levy same from them.

u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act,2005,Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are empowered to recommend to the Govt disciplinary action against erring Public Information Officers who commit faults referred above u/s 20(1).Commission is just like a court.Commission ought to have power to direct/order disciplinary action against erring Public Information Officers instead of recommendation.Nothing is going to happen by recommendation,because Commission will recommend to the Govt,but the Govt will not initiate disciplinary action.

Video Courtesy-Raja Ji