First procrastination and latter made available incomplete and misleading information by CPIO, UIDAI

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
First procrastination and latter made available incomplete and misleading information by the Central Public Information Officer.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 15 January 2018 at 19:12
To: ddgrolucknow@uidai.net.in, gaurav.shukla@uidai.net.in, deepali.sharma@uidai.net.in, ylprao@uidai.net.in

To
                                                      First appellate authority
                                                  Mrs Reema Hota Singh, Deputy Director-General,  
                                                     O/o Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) regional office Lucknow, 
                                                       Lucknow -226010
Subject -Rejected the R.T. I. Application on the flimsy ground by providing incomplete misleading information.
Hon’ble Sir -Your appellant invites the attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought information regarding point 1 as follows. 
1-CPIO may provide the notings and status of attached submitted grievances.
There are two grievances attached to the R.T.I. Application which is also annexed with this appeal also. 
From the following attached reply, it is obvious that CPIO has provided action result not noting in regard to my e-mail representation dated: 24/10/2017 but it is unfortunate that CPIO didn’t consider it appropriate to provide any information in regard to e-mail representation dated:26-Oct-2017 which is also annexed with the R.T.I. Application
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant sought information regarding point 2 as follows.
2-CPIO may provide the name and designation of public staffs processing the attached grievances at this time and time of completion of processing.
Whether any such information as sought aforementioned was made available by the Central Public Information Officer if not why? Whether the act of the Central Public Information Officer is not creating a stumbling block in the path of ensuring transparency and accountability in the working of public staffs as well as the public authority which is against the spirit of Transparency act. 
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to CPIO, R.T.I. Application of the appellant was made available to him on26/12/2017 but the status of R.T.I. Application is as follows. 
Enter Registration Number
UIDAI/R/2017/50777
Name
Yogi M P Singh
Date of filing
01/11/2017
Public Authority
Unique Identification Authority of India
Status
REQUEST DISPOSED OF
Date of action
01/12/2017
Reply :- Kindly refer to your RTI applicanation.

2. The matter was investigated and it was found that RTI application pertains to
E & U Division. Therefore the RTI application is transferred to Deputy Director & CPIO E & U Division for providing information directly to the applicant under intimation to Logistics Division.

3. In case the RTI matter does not concern to you, it is requested to kindly transfer the point to CPIO concerned.

Yours faithfully,
Encl: As above.

(Deepali Sharma)
Assistant Director General & CPIO

To,
Shri Ashok Kumar,
Astt. Director General (E & U)
UIDAI Hq
Delhi.

Copy to
1. DD & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, UIDAI HQ for information.
2. Shri Yogi M P Singh, Mohalla Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District Mirzapur- 231001.

CPIO Details :-
Deepali Sharma
Phone: 011-23462605
deepali.sharma@uidai.net.in
First Appellate Authority Details :-
Dr. Y.L.P. Rao
Phone: 011-23466816
ylprao@uidai.net.in
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number
01123466837
Email Id
It seems that lenient to its allocated duties, lax and careless CPIO even didn’t think it appropriate to take a perusal of supporting documents with the R.T. I. Application, ipso facto obvious that your appellant sought information regarding the action detail submitted before accountable public functionaries in the department which were annexed with the R.T.I. Application. Since concerned staffs as usual throw the grievances of the common citizenry into the dustbin so CPIO made a childish reply in regard to aforementioned point. Consequently, CPIO made the mockery of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 so subject to appropriate penal proceedings in accordance with the law.
   This is a humble request of your appellant to you Hon’ble Sir that it can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this, your appellant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
                                          Yours sincerely
                             Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District- Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.


2 attachments
An appeal under subsection 1 of the section 19 Documents.pdf
362K
document.pdf
564K
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

CPIO may provide the name and designation of public staffs processing the attached grievances at this time and time of completion of processing.
Whether any such information as sought aforementioned was made available by the Central Public Information Officer if not why? Whether the act of the Central Public Information Officer is not creating a stumbling block in the path of ensuring transparency and accountability in the working of public staffs as well as the public authority which is against the spirit of Transparency act.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

It seems that lenient to its allocated duties, lax and careless CPIO even didn’t think it appropriate to take a perusal of supporting documents with the R.T. I. Application, ipso facto obvious that your appellant sought information regarding the action detail submitted before accountable public functionaries in the department which were annexed with the R.T.I. Application. Since concerned staffs as usual throw the grievances of the common citizenry into the dustbin so CPIO made a childish reply in regard to aforementioned point. Consequently, CPIO made the mockery of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 so subject to appropriate penal proceedings in accordance with the law.