It has been practice that information is made available only when SICs and CICs order

What is meaning  of R.T.I. Application under subsection 1 of section 6 and first appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005? 

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <>
Reg. Sixth RTI second appeal to Industries
1 message
Sudalai Kumar <> 10 October 2019 at 19:52

To:,, vijchitra <>

Second Appeal Form 
Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
[See Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2012]
Details of Appellant
Dr. S. Sudalai Kumar
Plot No 40 DAC Delight Door No F8
Venkateshwara Nagar
5th Street, Pozhichalur
Chennai 600074.
Mobile Phone Number
(if available)
Email ID (if available)
Under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I am filing an appeal, the details of which are furnished below:
I.                     Chronology
Date of petition to PIO under 6(1) of the RTI Act
Date of transfer, if any, of petition to another PIO on point of
No intimation
Date of acknowledgement or date of receipt by PIO (if known)
No intimation
Date of reply from PIO
Date of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act
Date of acknowledgment or receipt by Appellate Authority
(if known)
Date of receipt of reply or order of Appellate Authority
II.                   Public Authority
8. Name of department concerned: Department of Industries
Name (if known), Designation and Address
PIO to whom petition was
A.     Mariappan
Under  Secretary Industries Department
PIO,    if    any,    to    whom
petition was transferred

Appellate Authority
K. Balasubramiam
PIO   who different
sent from
reply PIO
(if in
Appellate Authority who sent   reply      (if different
from the one in Sl.No.11)
Deputy Secretary
III.                 Reason for appeal
Reason for appeal [Tick against appropriate column(s) below]
PIO did not send reply
Appellate Authority failed to pass order
Reply refused, without due justification
Reply is incorrect / misleading / false
Reply is partial or incomplete
IV.                Grounds of appeal
[Details of requests / items for which the appellant has not received reply or is not satisfied with the reply]
Item No. in the RTI Petition
Grievance relating to the furnishing of the information on this item
Give the information of action taken on NHRC order. NHRC has given direction to Chief secretary of Tamilnadu for the action on case no1545/22/13/2019 on 22nd July 2019 within 8 weeks of time. 8 weeks are going to be over and the state government has been delaying the process and supporting the mining scam for ulterior motives. 
All information asked is readily available in DGM office database and they have to give all the information as asked for in the interest of larger public. What is the secrecy there?
All the charges against me are false and frivolous without any proof. DGM is refusing to give evidences to support his allegations against me. The action of DGM is unbecoming of an IAS officer. Why he is afraid to conduct enquiry even after 47 days of suspension? It is suspected that lakhs of crores of rupees are involved in the looting of mining scam by Geology and mining staffs including DGM. 
This might have exceeded the granite scam in Madurai. It is not a personal grievance. DGM can ask their legal advisors if he does not know the law. We are only asking for facts and want their credentials. If they refuse they are all punishable under IPC 166 and 166A –Public servants disobeying law and act to cause injury to public and under Prevention of corruption act.
Finally I request you to advise the Chief Secretary of Tamilnadu to take action on
(In the column for Grievance, the appellant may state ‘Reply not received’ if no reply was received for the item. If reply was received but the appellant is not satisfied, the reason must be clearly explained)
V.                  Prayer:
Since the information requested in RTI are in the larger public interest, it over rides section 2f, 2 g ,etc. of the RTI act. All information are needed for the transparency in government administration and required to support my stand against corruption and revoke suspension order given by the director o geology and mining department. The PIO and FAA should be fined Rs. 25,0000 PER RTI QUERY for the refusal of information in all RTI applications and it should be deducted from their salaries. and they should pay me the adequate compensation for the suspension order under fake charges. They should revoke my suspension order and reinstate me in government service with proper promotion and transfer as per the procedure for my highest qualification -in view of the fake charges framed against and refusing to give explanation fearing that they would be caught red handed. Due to the delay in reply to my RTI queries and refusal of information landed me in the long suspension of three months period without committing any mistakes. This is also mainly in the interest of the nation since lakhs of crores of government funds were looted. These three months were difficult for me to survive without proper salary to manage my loan EMIs, personal life and family. This is now the life and death issue for me now to survive without job and salary.  I request the State information commission to take up the case immediately and give information so that all my false allegations against me will be cleared. I require adequate compensation for the disappointment caused by this office and the public for misunderstanding me with fake charges.
1.      RTI information were refused by PIO, FAA of CS, Industries dept, P and AR dept and Geology and mining dept for the purpose of looting government money and continuing the corruption in mining scam. They are all misquoting the RTI act section for the refusal of information overrides the law with ulterior motives of looting government money. They all do these corruptions in large network of government servants and fooling us by refusing information asked in RTI application.
2.      Ask them to give the information as asked in RTI query and first appeal under the provision of RTI act.
3.      PIO, First appellate authority must be fined Rs. 1 Lakh each since they did not give right reply for RTI queries.
4.      Please inform the industries secretary and Chief secretary (viz. how they murdered the laws of Indian democracy) about their refusal to give information for ulterior motives and terminate all three involved viz Chief secretary, Industries secretary, Director of geology and mining dept under IPC 166-166A and anti corruption act.
5.      This must be published in all papers so that the poor public is aware that police is corrupt to the core and SIC is here to protect them. They harassed me even after writing many letters and suspended me under fake charges.
I, SUDALAI KUMAR  S     S/O or D/O or W/O SUBRAMANIAN V     , the appellant herein, do hereby declare that the details and particulars furnished above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I have not suppressed any material fact.
I have not preferred any appeal previously to the Commission on the same issues raised in this appeal.
Place : Chennai
Date :11-10-19
Signature of the Appellant

Best Regards,
Dr. S. Sudalai Kumar M.Sc.,Ph.D.,
Chemist, Chemical Analysis Wing
Department of Geology and Mining

(Government of Tamilnadu)

TVK Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai-32

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Undoubtedly it was an arbitrary action so running away from proving the sought information to the whistle blower.
All the charges against me are false and frivolous without any proof. DGM is refusing to give evidences to support his allegations against me. The action of DGM is unbecoming of an IAS officer. Why he is afraid to conduct enquiry even after 47 days of suspension? It is suspected that lakhs of crores of rupees are involved in the looting of mining scam by Geology and mining staffs including DGM.

Arun Pratap Singh
1 year ago

Undoubtedly there is substance in the quotes of the whistle
blower if they are correct why are they not providing sought information to the whistle blower? Whether it is not mockery of Right to information Act 2005?If the highly educated people advocating transparency and accountability in the government machinery.

Beerbhadra Singh
1 year ago

I am fully agreed with the view points of the poster that information speaker must be compensated through the penalty imposed on the public information officers and it may be confirmed that what ever penalties are imposed had to be recovered by the concerned public authorities because now a days what ever penalties are imposed on the erring public information officers is not being recovered by the public authorities. Undoubtedly matter is serious and reflection of lawlessness and Anarchy in the government concerned but it is not sufficient to talk about lawlessness and Anarchy because action must be taken against the erring public information officers so that pro thoughts must be collected and this issue that why provisions of The Right to Information act 2005 is not being followed by the government of India as well as government of states and why are they diluting the provisions of transparency act under the influence of corrupt public functionaries of the government?