CIC served notice for hearing dated 11 May 2020 to CPIO consumer affairs after two years

According to C.I.C. Neeraj Kumar Gupta following sought information by the information seeker is mere presumption.

1-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought information from the CPIO

Sought information as, 1- the same reply was made by a company in 10 complaints made against online shopping Ebay India private limited. Please make available provision which empowers the company to submit the same reply in different complaints. 2-Make available the role of staffs of ministry in the cases filed on website.3- Queries and complaints are invited on the website by the consumers but companies never reply queries, please provide the name, designation and obligatory duties of concerned public staffs.

Decision Uploaded

Inbox
x

Central Information Commission (CIC) no-reply@nic.in via nic.in 

19:36 (3 hours ago)

Reply
to me
Dear Sir/Madam,

Final decision on your case has been uploaded on website at www.cic.gov.in Your case details are given below:

1 File Number CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/632021
2 Information Commissioner Neeraj Kumar Gupta
3 Decision uploading date 17-05-2020
4 Hearing scheduled date 11-05-2020
5 Appellant Name YOGI M. P. SINGH
6 Appellant Address S/o. SHRI RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH, MOHALLA-SUREKAPURAM, JABALPUR ROAD, DISTT-MIRZAPUR, U. P. -231001
7 Public Authority Department of Consumer Affairs
8 CPIO details THE CPIO

Decision has been uploaded for your case CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/632021 . Please click here to view your decision.

Regards,
Central Information Commission (CIC)

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Hearing notice in case No.632021
1 message
Subhash Sharma <sharma.subhash@nic.in> 29 April 2020 at 17:51
To: yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Cc: “US(P&C)” <uspc-ca@nic.in>

Sir

 

Please find hearing notice in respect of subject cited case(s). Due to lock-down, the notice could not be sent by post and hence, it is requested to forward it to the concerned CPIO. The hearing will take place by video conference/audit, as per the circumstances prevailing at that time. The written submission may please be uploaded on cic site as indicated in the notice. The concerned CPIO may please give its mobile No.

 

S.C.Sharma

DR

 

2 attachments
632021-yogi.pdf
2876K
16.(2).pdf
105K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
No information is being provided by public authority is the reflection of failure of government.
2 messages
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 23 September 2018 at 10:40
To: Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, registrar-cic@nic.in, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in
An appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 against the denial of sought information by the CPIO and public grievance designated as Under Secretary in the ministry of consumer affairs.

To

Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner of India

Central Information Commission

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

New Delhi Pin code-110067

Appellant-Yogi M. P. Singh S/O Rajendra Pratap Singh

Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road

District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, PIN code-231001.

Versus

Respondent-1-Under Secretary, CPIO and Public Grievance,

Smt Hendrita Nayar Telephone No. 011+2307 6744,

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution,

Department of Consumer Affairs, 12-A, Jamnagar House,

New Delhi, PIN code-110011

2- Sita Ram Meena, Director and Appellate Authority,

Telephone No. 011+2338 77 37,

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution,

Department of Consumer Affairs,

Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

Subject-CPIO through its communication dated 16/07/2018 addressed to appellant, denied the sought information on the flimsy and cryptic grounds and in a mischievous way. She must be subjected to scrutiny under section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 of India.

First appellate authority instead of applying own rational mind, only copied the irrational decision of CPIO so disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against him so that such practice of non-providing sought information to information seekers may be curbed.

With due respect and regard to Hon’ble Sir, the appellant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.

1-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought information from the CPIO

Sought information as, 1- the same reply was made by a company in 10 complaints made against online shopping Ebay India private limited. Please make available provision which empowers the company to submit the same reply in different complaints. 2-Make available the role of staffs of ministry in the cases filed on website.3- Queries and complaints are invited on the website by the consumers but companies never reply queries, please provide the name, designation and obligatory duties of concerned public staffs.

2-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that undoubtedly the function of the company in respect of its reply is not natural so the unnatural reply is being accepted by the staffs of National Consumer Helpline so there must be some privileges which empower the company to make reply arbitrarily. If not available, they had to provide information that such provisions are not available. Consequently appellant seeks action against the erring staffs who accepted the arbitrary reply of the company and promoted lawlessness and anarchy in the society.

3-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that the government of India enforced the Right to Information Act 2005 in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authority but here such information is denied on the ground that information sought not existed to public authority.

4-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether even duties and role and public staffs will not be revealed under the Right to Information Act 2005 ipso facto obvious from the denial of sought information by the CPIO.

5-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when it is the obligation of the erring company staffs to reply the queries of the consumers but they are not replying so and staffs posted at National Consumer Helpline are not instrumental so and therefore appellant is seeking feedback regarding the public staffs posted at the NHA, but it unfortunate that this information also does not exist to CPIO, then CPIO must disclose what information he has to provide under RTI Act?  CPIO has no information concerned with the working of public authority. Whatever  information ought to be made available under section 4 (1 )(b) of the Right to Information Act 2005 free of cost is not being provided after providing a proper fee to CPIO under subsection 1 of section 6 of the Right to Information Act 2005 is not mockery of the Right to Information Act 2005.

This is a humble request of your 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-23-09-2018              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.

4 attachments
Online RTI First Appeal and its status.pdf
436K
Reply of FAA department of consumer affairs.pdf
366K
Online RTI Application and its status.pdf
445K
Reply of CPIO Consumer affairs.pdf
444K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 24 September 2018 at 01:35
To: uspc-ca@nic.in, nch-ca@gov.in
Most respected CPIO and FAA, Please take a glance of appeal submitted to CIC as you need in order to reply the cause of denial of sought information-SEARCH RESULTS

RESULTS FOR DIARY NUMBER: 632021

PARTICULARS DESCRIPTION
Name Yogi M P Singh
Address Mohalla Surekapuram Jabalpur Road
Diary No./Year 632021/2018
Diary Date 24-09-2018
DAK Status Waiting for scrutiny
File No.
Waiting for scrutiny — Dak is marked to Central Registry for Scrutiny and registration of Appeal/complaint.

 

Pasted from <https://dsscic.nic.in/CitizenShipAppealCompStatusDakFile/search-dak?opt=1&diary_number=632021&diary_year=2018&file_number=&search_button=Search>

[Quoted text hidden]

4 attachments
Online RTI First Appeal and its status.pdf
436K
Reply of FAA department of consumer affairs.pdf
366K
Online RTI Application and its status.pdf
445K
Reply of CPIO Consumer affairs.pdf
444K
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Preeti Singh
6 months ago

Right to Information Act 2005 is languishing in the regime of ongoing incumbent and no information is being made available to the information seekers through cryptic dealings. First our public functionaries deny information, then procrastinate so that information seekers may may frustrate and change the mind setup to seek information and may purse the case.

Beerbhadra Singh
Beerbhadra Singh
6 months ago

Undoubtedly Modi government at the centre Put The Right to Information act 2005 into the heap of garbage quite obvious from the working style of the government functionaries. Think about the gravity of situation that venue for the appellant is decided in the state of Andhra Pradesh and it is impossible for the appellant to reach at the destination in this lockdown period from the Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh which implies that arbitrary decision will be taken in the absence of appellant by the concerned.

Bhoomika Singh
Bhoomika Singh
6 months ago

Undoubtedly Right to Information act 2005 is one of the excellent tools to control the growing corruption in the government machinery and to promote the transparency and accountability in the working of public authority but because of corruption in the office of transparency ombudsman and the government machinery this weapon has been Blunt. In 10 years Modi government has made it teethless and now no information is being provided by the public information officers to the information seekers finally citizens are not made available any information under Right to Information act 2005.

Arun Pratap Singh
6 months ago

It seems that entire process is only a drama to show that constitutional machinery is still alive in this largest democracy in the world. In order to justify the stand of wrongdoer central public information officers, various tricks are played by our accountable public functionaries as well. Most destruction of the transparency took place in the regime of Modi Sir. Most surprising thing is that even imposed penalties were not recovered from the corrupt public information officers.