Letter petition: DM told to probe charges
A DIVISION bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice Dharamveer Sharma, on Wednesday directed the Lucknow district magistrate to inquire into allegations contained in a letter petition within three weeks and file his report in court on April 24 next.
The above orders were passed on the letter petition sent by Akash Kumar Vaishya, a class VIII student of the APS Academy Inter College, Telibagh, Lucknow. He complained of harassment by the college authorities who he accused of demanding building development fee of Rs 1,200 from each student, or else they would not be permitted to appear in the examination.
The principal and manager of the institute were present in court in compliance with the High Court order passed earlier. The matter shall come up for hearing on April 24 next.
RTI Act : The HC’s Lucknow bench has directed the State Government to frame rules under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by April 17 next and get them implemented earnestly. The above orders were passed on a public interest writ petition filed earlier by Rae Bareli Bar Association secretary Santosh Bahadur Singh through advocate BK Singh. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that Parliament on June 15, 2005 had directed all States to implement provisions of the RTI Act before October 12, 2005. But, the provisions had not so far been implemented in Uttar Pradesh, nor were rules framed.
Accreditation case: A petition challenging the State Government’s order refusing press accreditation to a news agency operating through website came up for hearing before a division bench of the HC on Wednesday. Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, while putting the impugned order under abeyance till next listing, directed the Government to review its decision in the meanwhile. The above orders were passed on a writ petition filed on behalf of the Asian News Network through senior advocate IB Singh. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the accreditation was wrongly refused as the petitioner’s case was fully covered under the UP Press Accreditation Regulation 1978, which is applicable in this case.