Amount transferred Rs.37500.00 through cheque Number 497196 in financial year 2013-2014 on 25.9.2013 .
Amount transferred Rs.37500.00 through cheque Number 852741 in financial year 2013-2014 on 6.12.2013 .
Inspection of site was made by Inspector officer Dharm Jeet Singh on 15.11.2013 .Photo is annexed as Attachments.
4-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Summari Devi whose identity is UP-62-001-022-001/9777 is the beneficiary Indira Avas having no father or husband's name, Account number as aforesaid- 11800100001302 , Bank Name-Allahabad bank, administrative sanction number-2961 ,administrative sanction date-25.9.2013
Amount transferred Rs.35000.00 through cheque Number 018470 in the financial year 2013-2014 on 3.2.2014
Amount transferred Rs.35000.00 through the cheque Number-994186 in the financial year 2013-2014 on 1.10.2013
The site was inspected by Inspector officer Dharm Jeet Singh on 15.11.2013 .
5- It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Somari modification of Summari whose identity is UP-62-001-022-001/9790 is Indira Avas beneficiary whose detail is-husband's name is Rancharn modification of Ram Charan having account number -11960 Bank Name-Allahabad Bank, administrative sanction number-1524 ,administrative sanction date-10.5.2013 .
Amount transferred Rs.37500.00 through cheque Number-098765 in the financial year 2013-2014 on 15.1.2014.
6- It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that thus the three unique IDs were uploaded by the staffs of government of Summari through cunning tricks on the website of the central government as provided by the CPIO as initiative of central government to curb corrupt activities in the Housing scheme of the government of India. Which was argued by the appellant but request was arbitrarily overlooked by the aforementioned information commissioner. Whether the website of the central government is not monitored by the central staff ? How the multiple unique IDs can be provided to single beneficiary arbitrarily by implementing agency state concerned and accepted by the implementing agency of the department of the central government as the website of the central government is monitored by the ministry of Rural (Housing Division ) development .
7 -It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that how Mata Prasad S/O Kashi Ram and Mata Prasad S/O having no father have the same bank account 11800100015640 in Allahabad UP Gramin bank. Unique IDs issued to Mata Prasad S/O Kashi Ram are as follows-Mata Prasad (UP-62-001-022-001/6587) S/O Kashiram
8-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that first instalment was transferred through cheque Number 497196 on 25.9.2013 and second instalment was transferred through cheque Number 852741 on 6.12.2013 for one unique identity number. For the second unique identity number, first instalment was transferred through cheque Number 994186 on 1.10.2013 and second instalment was transferred through cheque Number 852741 on 6.12.2013. For more detail, please take a glance of the attached documents.
9- It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Shiva Raj S/O Jagannath have unique identity number.-UP-62-001-022-001/9542 and have bank account number-11800100015701 in Allahabad Bank.
10-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that Shiva Raj S/O Jagannath have unique identity number- UP-62-001-022-001/1547 and have bank account number-11800100015701 in the same Allahabad Bank.
11-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that whether there is competition in Government offices to search various tricks in order to siphon the Government fund meant to poor and downtrodden section? More troublesome is that constitutional functionaries are helping them by upholding the unjustified stand of the erring central public information officers on flimsy ground. In view of the appellant, such unethical practice must be curbed at any cost in the wide public interest. Now a days it has been tradition to deny the sought information on the ground that sought information is not information instead of denying it under section 8 and 9 of the right to information act 2005 and mislead the information seeker.
12-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that only ten minutes was provided as duration for hearing and information commissioner instead of paying heed to the grievances of the appellant only remained busy to shut the mouth of the appellant so truth of the deep rooted corruption may be concealed. Whether in this way information commissioner remains instrumental in providing sought information to the information seekers?
13-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 ACT NO. 22 OF 2005
[15th June, 2005.] An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to be governed;
Sought Information 4 – Please made available details of provision made by government which allows multiple Indira Avases to single beneficiaries ipso facto obvious from attached documents with R.T.I. Communication. According to website of central government -In the name of Summari (an old illiterate lady) by awarding three unique IDs, fund of three avases were flown into pockets of concerned public staffs similarly two avases of Mata Prasad and Shiv Raj Yadav quite obvious from internet feedings of seven houses on the website of the central government. This is model only not entire picture of the corruption.
14-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that according to information commissioner aforementioned five points sought information is sought to redress the grievance but I argued that I know well that under Right to Information Act 2005, information is sought not redressal of the grievance takes place but he tyrannically suggested that I should study Right to Information Act 2005.Hon'ble Sir, information commissioner by not being instrumental in providing the sought information not only acted against the spirit of the august act but also put the carpet on the corruption instead of exposing it. Sought information is concerned with the material fed on the website of the central government which is quite obvious from the attached documents to this representation.
15-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that section 9 states as, Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases.—Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. Which means sought information may be denied if it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act 2005.
16-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that please take a glance of this quote of august R.T.I. Act 2005-Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
If parliament had sought aforementioned information, then concerned public authority had denied the sought information if not how can appellant be denied sought information? Undoubtedly my rights could not be safeguarded by the central information commission and really a matter of great concern.
17-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that according to section 4 (1) (d) of Right to Information Act 2005, Every public authority shall—provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of historic judgement delivered by apex court of India. Accountability must be ensured in order to achieve good governance.
Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
This is a humble request of the applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of law of land? This is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir. Yours sincerely
Date-23-05-2019 Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.
Respected concerned staff of the government of India, matter has been raised in accordance with the prescribed law as quite obvious from the attachment to the grievance. Whether president of India or chief justice of India are not competent to take action in the matter. Matter is also addressed to chief information commissioner of India. Through this grievance, I am not seeking information under R.T.I. Act 2005 but action against the constitutional functionary not acting in accordance with the spirit of the Right to Information Act 2005. Whether applicant is seeking information through this complaint if not how the matter is concerned with the Right to Information Act.
ReplyDeleteO honest political masters whether you are honest only during election campaigns if not why overlooked the representation against a commissioner openly supporting the corrupt staffs of the government and shielding their corrupt deeds. Here it is quite obvious that there is ample evidence of corruption but concerned did not take any action because they themselves promote corruption from behind the screen.
ReplyDeleteFrom the contents of the post it is quite obvious that matter is concerned with the deep rooted corruption and it is also obvious that our accountable public functionaries are not taking any action in the matter even when repeated complaints have been submitted before them which is a mockery of the law of land and reflects the lackness of rule of law in the government and it is proving that we are living in a Banana Republic.
ReplyDeleteRole of the information commission is to be instrumental in providing information to the information seekers but if the information commission will be flooded with the corrupt public functionaries how can it be instrumental in providing information to the citizens and there will be transparency and accountability in the working of the public authority.
ReplyDelete