Information commissioner Manjula Prasher didn’t take any action in the matter and even no order was passed still

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Information commissioner Manjula Prasher didn’t take any action in the matter and even no order was passed still
2 messages
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 21 December 2016 at 22:48
To: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, secy-cic@nic.in, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, gm.customer@sbi.co.in

Whether this is not mockery of Right to Information Act 2005 which is impotent before the rampant corruption in our government machinery. 
21 December 2016
18:56
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that CIC/MP/A/2016/001309 was listed for hearing before the information commissioner Manjula Prasher on 05-12-2016 in which your applicant participated in the hearing  and reserve bank of India through its counsel. Please take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that reserve bank of India is regulatory body of banking institutions in India and your applicant sought information as please provide reason and regulations in regard to disproportionate charging of commission by state bank of India from the poor students in the name of collection of fee as fee structure is followed.
1-For collection of Rs.50 , service charges levied on poor students  Rs.57 i.e. More than the collection amount.
2-For collection of Rs.100 , service charges levied on poor students   Rs.57  .
3-For collection of Rs.200 , service charges levied on poor students   Rs.57  .
4-For collection of Rs.300 , service charges levied on poor students   Rs.57  .
CPIO , reserve bank of India did not make available any information and during the hearing on 5-Dec-2016 before the information commissioner Majula Parashar .denied the sought information on the ground that sought information is concerned with the state bank of India not reserved bank of India and when your applicant sought transfer of R.T.I. Communique under subsection 3 of section 6 of Right to Information act 2005,she disconnected the phone. Whether such behaviour of public functionaries is not cryptic. 
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that aforementioned information commissioner Manjula Prasher didn’t take any action in the matter and even no order was passed still ipso facto obvious from the attached documents with this representation. Non uniformity in the fee structure and cryptic dealing of staffs of reserve bank of India and state bank of India is not only causing havoc to citizenry but great damage to public treasury. Here service charges levied separately in the arbitrary manner which open the gate for corruption. On the other hand, accountable public functionaries are mute spectators of such behaviour/wrongdoing.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant filed first appeal on 18-March 2016 and first appellate authority passed the other on 01-Dec-2016 which is mockery of Right to information act 2005 but information commissioner Manjula Prasher didn’t take any action and took it negligently which is reflection of lawlessness and sheer mismanagement. Most unfortunate is that even after more than ten years since the date of ratification of act, first appellate authority couldn’t know the prescribed/stipulated time to process the first appeal
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Search Results
Particulars
Description
Appeal Details / Status
File Number:
CIC/MP/A/2016/001309
Appeal Number:
SA/UG/16/f14787ok3b
Date submitted (Online):
17-06-2016
Status:
Pending for Hearing / Disposal in the Registry of CIC/IC Mrs Manjula Prasher
Complaint/Appeal Admitted
Date of Receipt of Hardcopy
08-06-2016
Action-Date:
17-06-2016
PA / CPIO Details
Public Authority:
Reserve Bank of India
CPIO Name:
The CPIO
Address:
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Telephone:
E-mail:
Appellant’s Particulars
Name:
Mr. YOGI M P SINGH
Address:
MOHALLA SUREKAPURAM JABALPUR ROAD DISTT MIRZAPUR UP
City:
Citizen:
NRI / PIO
Country:
Email:
Results for Appeal Number: CIC/MP/A/2016/001309
                
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant 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


Mockery of Right to Information Act 2005..pdf
399K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 5 February 2017 at 09:33
To: presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, secy-cic@nic.in, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, gm.customer@sbi.co.in

Sir your applicant wants the copy of judgement passed by reverred lady information commissioner.Whatever orders were passed in the central information commission still in the cases of your applicant  , copy of order of judgement was made available to your applicant but in this case as matter concerned with deep rooted corruption ,no order sheet was made available to your applicant.

                                                   This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant 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 comments on Information commissioner Manjula Prasher didn’t take any action in the matter and even no order was passed still

  1. Sir your applicant wants the copy of judgement passed by reverred lady information commissioner.Whatever orders were passed in the central information commission still in the cases of your applicant , copy of order of judgement was made available to your applicant but in this case as matter concerned with deep rooted corruption ,no order sheet was made available to your applicant.

  2. Hon'ble Sir that reserve bank of India is regulatory body of banking institutions in India and your applicant sought information as please provide reason and regulations in regard to disproportionate charging of commission by state bank of India from the poor students in the name of collection of fee as fee structure is followed.
    1-For collection of Rs.50 , service charges levied on poor students Rs.57 i.e. More than the collection amount.
    2-For collection of Rs.100 , service charges levied on poor students Rs.57 .
    3-For collection of Rs.200 , service charges levied on poor students Rs.57 .
    4-For collection of Rs.300 , service charges levied on poor students Rs.57 .
    CPIO , reserve bank of India did not make available any information and during the hearing on 5-Dec-2016 before the information commissioner Majula Parashar .denied the sought information on the ground that sought information is concerned with the state bank of India not reserved bank of India and when your applicant sought transfer of R.T.I. Communique under subsection 3 of section 6 of Right to Information act 2005,she disconnected the phone. Whether such behaviour of public functionaries is not cryptic.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: