Press briefing of Information commissioner whether would prove information seeker friendly?


We information seekers will be too much glad if single wrongdoer PIO be disclosed from whom salary imposed pecuniary penalties were recovered.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments10:33 AM (1 minute ago)

to pmosbsupremecourturgent-actionhgovupcmupcsupsec.sicsecy-cic
Undoubtedly Information Commissioner is making quite right allegation and his efforts are praiseworthy but he may also meditate on the role of information commission which always supported the stand of wrongdoer PIOs. Why this practice is going on requires more attention of accountable public functionaries.
21 June 2015
09:34
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 according to Information commissioner pecuniary penalty is imposed on 59 PIOs of Mirzapur district but he has no such data which may tell us number of PIOs from whom salaries imposed penalties were recovered. If the order of information commission was not complied by concerned public functionaries , then what action was taken by Information Commission in order to get comply of its orders. Whether such move on the part of Information Commission may be seen as damage control mission or serious approach to provide justice to information seekers.
अधिनियम के तहत लोगों को सूचना मुहैया  कराने पर जिलाधिकारी समेत जिले के 59 अधिकारियों पर जुर्माना लगाया गया है। जिले के अधिकारीसूचना मुहैया कराने के प्रति गंभीर नहीं है।
यही वजह है कि राज्य सूचना आयोग में मिर्जापुर जिले के 988 मामले इस समय लंबित हैं। ये बातें राज्य सूचना आयुक्त गजेंद्र यादव ने शनिवार कोकलेक्ट्रेट सभागार में पत्रकारों से कहीं।
� उन्होंने बताया कि प्रदेश में लगभग 58 हजार मामले राज्य सूचना आयोग में लंबित है जिसमें मिर्जापुर जिले के 988 मामले शामिल है। सूचनाउपलब्ध नहीं कराने पर जिले के डीएमजिला पूर्ति अधिकारीबीएसएडीपीआरओसीडीओडीडीओआबकारीअधिकारीआरटीओसिंचाई विभाग केअधिकारी
जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षकखनन अधिकारीडीएफओसीएमओखाद्य विभागबिजली विभाग पुलिस विभाग समेत अन्य 59 विभाग केअधिकारियों के विरुद्ध धारा बीस  तथा बी के तहत अर्थदंड से दंडित किया�� गया है। यह भी देखा जा रहा है कि जिनके विरुद्घ जुर्माना लगायागया है उसकी वसूली हो रही है��� कि नहीं। 
 2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
In two financial years only two PIOs were penalized by UPSIC but not a single penny was recovered from their salary. Whether this is not anarchy.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
8:24 PM (4 minutes ago)
to sec.sic, supremecourt, pmosb, hgovup, cmup, urgent-action, csup
 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 Hon’ble Sir may take a glance of attachment in the PDF form containing 18 pages with this e-mail representation, categorically showing that our state is governed by lawlessness and sheer anarchy. Whether  this is not corruption that erring PIOs who are floating all set up standard norms and violating the provisions of Right to Information are not being subjected to penal action because of tacit understanding between them and accountable public functionaries in the state.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble Sir may take a glance of following e-mail representation submitted before various public authorities but no accountable public functionary desires to curb this jungle raj. It seems that all have put their hands in the globe of corruption.
At least penalty must also be recovered from B.D.O. but commissioner rural development overlooked
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Mar 15
to urgent-action, pmosb, supremecourt, hgovup, cmup, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, sec.sic
Hon’ble Sir-Whether any action will be taken to direct concerned to recover penalty from B.D.O. Bhola Nath Kannaujia as requested by your applicant under point 2-2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.M. Mirzapur requested to commissioner ,Rural development ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 947 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.D.O. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary. Hon’ble Sir This is reminder e-mail. I have sent you so many reminders then D.M. Mirzapur told me that in two financial years only two PIOs are punished but their penalties have to recovered from their salary. The progress is before you Hon’ble Sir. At least letters should be sent if penalty couldn’t be recovered so that they may not make travesty of justice/provisions of Transparency act. Your applicant expects that at least his representation may be endorsed to concern with stern advice note. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. 
Director of basic education Uttar Pradesh Lucknow directed PIO /District B.S.A. Mirzapur to made available information.
The content of the letter is as follows.
Sender-Director, Basic education ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow
To
              Public Information Officer /District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (B.S.A.) ,Mirzapur
Letter No. Educationa Directorate /Basic /R.T.I./2013/14  Dated-4.2.2014
Subject-In regard to made available information under Right to Information Act 2005 .
Gentle man,
                        Aforesaid subject is addressed to Director ,Basic Education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow as well as endorsed to others of letter of public information officer /additional district magistrate  F/R collectorate Mirzapur dated 13.1.2014 , take the perusal of this letter . This letter has been received from personal secretary /public information officer ,Chief secretary ,Government of Uttar Pradesh in order to dispose it.
In respect of this letter ,I was directed that please take necessary steps in the concerned matter and made available the sought information to complainant within time under Right to Information Act 2005 and ensure to  apprise the concerned.
Annexure as aforesaid              With regard
                                 Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow
   Endorsed to. Letter No. E.D. B./General education ,R.T.I./27612-16 /2013-14 same date
1-copy to PIO /Additional Director basic education. Uttar Pradesh ,Allahabad
2-copy to PIO/Divisional assistant director basic education Varanasi .
3-copy to concerned assistant, camp office Right to Information ,Lucknow
4-copy to Yogi M. P. Singh Resident-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road , Mirzapur.
                                     Initial of APIO 3.2.14  
                              Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow 
In two financial years ,only three imposed penalties on two erring PIOs but unfortunately still to be recovered.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
8:08 PM (3 minutes ago)
to pmosb, hgovup, urgent-action, cmup, supremecourt, cj, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, sec.sic, lokayukta, uphrclko
Hon’ble Sir. 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 under section 4 (1)(d)
Every public authority shall—
provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Hon’ble Sir B.D.O. Chhanbey Bhola Nath Kannaujia and B.S.A. Mirzapur Dinesh Kumar Yadav didn’t deposit the imposed penalty as imposed under section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005 by U.P.S.I.C. . Whether wrongdoer B.D.O. will deposit Rs. 25 thousand rupees with interest and B.S.A. will deposit Rs. 50 thousand with interest as required by law to the treasury. Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of attached PDF.
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.M. Mirzapur requested to commissioner ,Rural development ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 947 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.D.O. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary. Likewise D.M. Mirzapur  requested to Director , Basic Education , Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 948 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.S.A. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary . Please take a glance of attached PDF. Whether complainant will not be made available sought information. In two financial years ,only three penalties have been made by UPSIC and not a coin was recovered by government functionaries still and now indirectly D.M. Mirzapur is overlooking the complainant to whom he has to furnish access to information.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 (3)
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—
(i)
   which is held by another public             authority; or
(ii)
the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
Whether D.M. Mirzapur don’t want to make available information to your applicant if yes then why? Here it is obvious that sought information is held by Commissioner ,rural development and Director ,basic education so concerned may be directed by the competent authority in order to make available the information as sought by information seeker. Please take a glance of following link-http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/12/it-is-unfortunate-that-no-pio-is_22.html
  This is humble request of your applicant to direct concerned authority to make available sought information.  For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                              Yours sincerely
                           Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur (U.P.) India.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that there is concrete evidence but no wrongdoer is being punished whether such act of government itself not promoting wrongdoings/anarchy in the public institutions. Here this question arises that whether personnel appointed in the transparency panel deliberately avoiding the non-compliance of its orders or incompetent to get compliance of their orders. Whether such anarchy is not making our transparency panel teeth-less.
                                               This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that please take appropriate steps so that lawlessness being created because of non compliance of orders of UPSIC causing piling up of complaints in the office of ombudsman must be taken into account and such bad practice must be curbed. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                                                             Yours sincerely
                                                                                                            Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road , Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.),India  
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
It is unfortunate that no P.I.O. is punished under section 20 as order passed under this section never complied.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
3:17 PM (6 minutes ago)
to supremecourt, pmosb, cj, hgovup, urgent-action, cmup, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, lokayukta, sec.sic, uphrclko
Hon’ble Sir-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 
in two years only five penalties on four persons (erring PIOs) were imposed but recovery couldn’t be made from the salary these erring staff of the Government by accountable staff of public authority. Why government is adopting lackadaisical approach in ascertaining the compliance of the order of information commission?If the imposed pecuniary penalty will not be recovered from the salary of erring PIOs , then what is the application section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005. Why our lawmakers introduced this provision in transparency act which is not being complied by the staff of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Whether the state government is not acting against the spirit of transparency act. Hon’ble Sir ,please take a glance of the following link-http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/06/no-penalty-was-recovered-then-how.html
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that How much serious condition that only five penalties have been made in two years but concerned government staff didn’t recover the imposed pecuniary penalty on erring PIOs by UPSIC. Whether this is not showing the lawlessness in the state as penalty is imposed by Hon’ble information commissioner in the rarest of rare cases when repeatedly order of UPSIC is  taken under teeth by the competent authority. Whether accountable staff of the Government is not thinking that if the erring PIOs will be shielded from punishment genuinely awarded on the erring PIOs , what signal will go in the society. Penal provision in the act is made by our law makers in order to create fear in the mind of violators of the provisions of the act. If penal provision will not be applied ,then whether it would be possible for information seeker to seek information from erring PIOs. Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of following links-
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble UPSIC in the financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11 imposed pecuniary penalty on following PIOs of Mirzapur district- 1-Vidya Sagar versus PIO collectorate in complaint no.S8-676/C/08 ,penalty imposed on 29.9.2010 . 2-Radhey Shyam Upadhyay versus B.S.A. in complaint no. S8-1584/C/08 ,penalty imposed on 4.5.2011 . 3-Dharma Kumar Singh versus B.S.A. in complaint no. S8-1314/C/08, penalty imposed on 10.8.2011 . 4-Radhey Shyam Upadhyay versus B.D.O. Chhanbey in complaint no. S8-1839/C/09 , penalty imposed on 10.8.2011 . 5-Ram Anuj Singh versus Jalkal engineer municipality in complaint no. S11-636/C/09 , penalty imposed on 6.11.2011 . Hon’ble Sir- your applicant wants to know that in two years ,UPSIC imposed Rs.125000 .00 as pecuniary penalty on erring PIOs of Mirzapur district ,whether this amount was recovered if yes then where is proof, if not why?
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether accountable functionaries really wants to redress the grievances of common people of state if yes then why such cryptic address of C.I.C. is given on C.I.C. website.  The address “<“sushmas[at]nic(dot)in”>” in the “To” field was not recognized. Please make sure that all addresses are properly formed.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether this not mockery of provisions of transparency act and whether in such surrounding any PIO will provide information to information seeker. This is true that some times PIO send blank paper in the name of information which is not only mockery of provisions of transparency act but also the spirit democracy on which this vast democracy in the world is based.
    This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir to take some positive steps in order to establish the faith of common citizens of state in democratic institutions. Please direct appropriate agency to look into fact that why U.P.S.I.C. order is not being complied by D.M. Mirzapur and PIO Collectorate  Mirzapur. It may be such practice may be quite common in the entire state so there is need to pay attention on this crucial issue. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Yours sincerely                                                                                
                                              Yogi M. P. Singh
Moh- Surekapuram . Jabalpur Road    Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.) 
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
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India

2 comments on Press briefing of Information commissioner whether would prove information seeker friendly?

  1. अधिनियम के तहत लोगों को सूचना मुहैया न कराने पर जिलाधिकारी समेत जिले के 59 अधिकारियों पर जुर्माना लगाया गया है। जिले के अधिकारीसूचना मुहैया कराने के प्रति गंभीर नहीं है।

    �यही वजह है कि राज्य सूचना आयोग में मिर्जापुर जिले के 988 मामले इस समय लंबित हैं। ये बातें राज्य सूचना आयुक्त गजेंद्र यादव ने शनिवार कोकलेक्ट्रेट सभागार में पत्रकारों से कहीं।

    � उन्होंने बताया कि प्रदेश में लगभग 58 हजार मामले राज्य सूचना आयोग में लंबित है जिसमें मिर्जापुर जिले के 988 मामले शामिल है। सूचनाउपलब्ध नहीं कराने पर जिले के डीएम, जिला पूर्ति अधिकारी, बीएसए, डीपीआरओ, सीडीओ, डीडीओ, आबकारीअधिकारी, आरटीओ, सिंचाई विभाग केअधिकारी,

    जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, खनन अधिकारी, डीएफओ, सीएमओ, खाद्य विभाग, बिजली विभाग पुलिस विभाग समेत अन्य 59 विभाग केअधिकारियों के विरुद्ध धारा बीस ए तथा बी के तहत अर्थदंड से दंडित किया�� गया है। यह भी देखा जा रहा है कि जिनके विरुद्घ जुर्माना लगाया�गया है उसकी वसूली हो रही है��� कि नहीं।

  2. Most surprising that not a single PIO is finally punished under section 20 of Right to Information act 2005 in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This is the root cause no PIO wants to furnish access to Information to Information seeker. Hon.ble member have provided the concrete evidence and struggled whole heartedly to churn the truth. When in two financial years,not a single PIO was punished, how is it feasible that 59 PIOs will be punished I,e, only stunt.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: