No information is being provided by a public authority is the reflection of the failure of government.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
No information is being provided by a public authority is the reflection of the failure of government.
1 message
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

5 1 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

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.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh

department of Consumer Affairs is a corrupt department of the government of india that no information is provided under RTI act no information is available in public domain consumer rights of citizen no more safe justice is available to undoubtedly the matter is concerned to the corruption it is confirmed that no action will be taken justice is provided in this way whether justice is available to the weaker section in this largest democracy in the world the India is a Banana Republic