VISION FOR ALL

Rahul Kumar

275 Posts

32 comments

Reader Blogs are not moderated, Jagran is not responsible for the views, opinions and content posted by the readers.
blogid : 8093 postid : 909746

उत्तर-पुस्तिका देने के लिए दो हजार रुपये

Posted On 16 Jun, 2015 Others में

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

ललित नारायण मिथिला विश्वविद्यालय,दरभंगा आरटीआई एक्ट के तहत उत्तर-पुस्तिका प्रदान नहीं कर रही है और उत्तर-पुस्तिका देने के लिए दो हजार रुपये ले रही है।मेरा एक क्लासमेट द्वारा आरटीआई आवेदन दायर करने के बाद इसकी जानकारी हुई।
मैंने कुलपति साकेत कुशवाहा से बात कर कहा कि उत्तर-पुस्तिका आरटीआई आवेदन के माध्यम से मांगे जाने पर आरटीआई रुल्स के तहत निर्धारित शुल्क लेकर ही दिया जाना चाहिए तो उन्होंने कहा कि ये साकेत कुशवाहा का फैसला नहीं है,परीक्षा बोर्ड का फैसला है।
बिहार विद्यालय परीक्षा समिति को सूचना आवेदन भेजकर मैंने उत्तर-पुस्तिका मांगा था जिसमें प्रति विषय सौ रुपये के अतिरिक्त दो रुपये प्रति पेज जमा करने कहा गया था।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने CBSE & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors,2011 AIR SCW 4888 में फैसला दिया है कि उत्तर-पुस्तिका प्राप्त करना आरटीआई एक्ट के दायरे में है।इसलिए उत्तर-पुस्तिका आरटीआई रुल्स के तहत निर्धारित शुल्क पर ही दिया जाना चाहिए।
उक्त विश्वविद्यालय और बिहार बोर्ड ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश और आरटीआई रुल्स के विरुध्द अपना नियम बना रखा है,इसलिए मैं राज्य सूचना आयोग में शिकायत दायर करने जा रहा हूँ।

…………………………………………………………

I have closely observed a case of high level corruption in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein the bench of presiding Judge was changed twice without prior order of the presiding Judge, who was hearing the bail petition of a ten years imprisoned offender u/s 307 IPC.
The matter came up for hearing before Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and he ordered to call for the lower court records. After receipt of the records, the matter came up for hearing before Justice Vikash Jain instead of Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh. On prayer of the counsel for convicted, Justice Vikash Jain adjourned the matter for two weeks. After two weeks,the matter was heard by Justice Gopal Prasad instead of Justice Vikash Jain and bail was granted.

When the counsel for the convicted observed that Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh is not in the mood of granting bail, the counsel managed the registry of the High Court and get the matter transferred before Justice Vikash Jain and now Justice Vikash Jain was not in the mood of granting bail, so after taking adjournment, the counsel again managed the registry of the High Court and get the matter transferred before Justice Gopal Prasad. It is now easy to visualize that Justice Gopal Prasad would not have granted bail without being bribed.
Why Justice Vikash Jain didn’t consider before Granting adjournment how the matter came up before him without the prior transfer order of the Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh, who was already hearing the matter? Why Justice Gopal Prasad didn’t consider before taking up the matter for hearing how the matter came up before him without the prior transfer order of Justice Vikash Jain, who was previously hearing the matter?
Notice was not sent to the victim informant by the High Court to represent thorough its lawyer against the bail and appeal petition and thus absence of knowledge of filing of bail and appeal petition resulted in granting bail to the convicted by adopting the malpractices of transferring court(bench) without the prior order of the presiding Judge.
I had helped victim to get the offender punished for ten years.



Tags:   

Rate this Article:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

0 प्रतिक्रिया

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Post a Comment

CAPTCHA Image
*

Reset

नवीनतम प्रतिक्रियाएंLatest Comments


topic of the week



latest from jagran