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

1. 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 1/10
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005
1 message
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:44 PM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
Date: 08/03/2017
Ref: RTI reply Dy. No. 2522/RTI/16­17/SCI dated 04.03.2017
by Adl. Registrar & CPIO Supreme Court of India.
From:
Om Prakash Poddar
R/O RZF­893, Netaji Subhas Marg
Raj Nagar Part­2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi­10077
Mob: 9968337815
E­mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
To,
The First Appellate Authority
Ld. Registrar (Admin)
Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
Sub: First Appeal under Right to Information Act 2005.

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

6. 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 6/10
5. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.05
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
6. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.06
Cum­Legal Remembrancer
Law Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat Patna­800015
7. Shri Praveen Kumar(IDAS) ….RESPONDENT No.07
Chairman and Managing Director (C&MD),
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
H.O. Scope Complex, Core­6, 1st Floor
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi­110003
5. There are 9 nine reliefs have been prayed in the Writ
Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled “OM
PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS” while only 2
reliefs have been prayed in the Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 entitled OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. STATE OF BIHAR
& ORS”
­:PRAYER:­
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased:
(i) To issue a writ of prohibition or
Certiorari or other appropriate writ order
or direction directing respondent No.04 and
05 for cancellation of N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. against Shri Om Prakash
Poddar and Ms Asha Devi and quashing of the
pending criminal proceedings in Criminal Case
Complaint (P) No.5591 of 2013 u/s 498A to
ensure life or personal liberty and freedom
of movement across the Indian Territory by
the petitioner no.01 and 02.

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.

10. 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 10/10
6 attachments
Filing Index.pdf
89K
Final Status of RTI dated 02.02.2017.pdf
127K
communication with Registrar SCI.pdf
193K
Lodgement Order dated 28.01.2017 of Registrar Supreme Court of India.pdf
944K
Lodgement Order dated 16.02.2017 of Registrar Supreme Court of India.pdf
785K
First Appeal_SCI_08_03_2017.pdf
286K