Public authorities arbitrarily deny sought information because of rampant corruption in governments

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Apex court : disclosure of show cause notices, chargsheet to the govt. employee will be protected under sec 8 (1- J ) by considering as personal information .
2 messages
rishi saxena <rishi_s78@rediffmail.com> 11 August 2018 at 23:03

To: “yogimpsingh@gmail.com” <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Cc: rishisaxena724 <rishisaxena724@gmail.com>

Respected Sir,

I am the victim of exploitation done by some of the officer and employees of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.(UPCL). When i approached to the Uttarakhand Electricity Regularity Commission than an enquiry was made and all the involved officials/employees were found culprit for doing unlawful act. But as usual the higher authority has acted under the influence (financial / political) of all accused and release all of them by doing the formality of conducting internal corresponding with all of the accused. At the end all the accused were saved by just giving an advice (Attachment-2) mentioning being more careful in future so that same couldn’t be repeated. 
when i asked (Attachment-1) to provide the copy of all corresponding, made among them (UPCL & accused, under RTI act -2005, I have been denied (Attachment-3i, ii) by giving the reference of the order (Attachment-4) of apex court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vst. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012]
where all the show cause notices, chargsheet to the employee have been considered as personal information and protected under sec 8 (1- J ).
As far as my knowledge and assessment is concerned, the information sought by me should not come under the purview of aforementioned judgement as this matter was clearly relevant to the public interest an must be disclosed to the victim who has to suffer because of it .

I am in the strong need of your expert advice.
You are requested to look into the matter and kindly guide me, how to proceed further against this arrogance and unlawful act.

Thanks & Regards
Rishi Saxena
Rampur, U.P.
Mob.: 9458594695, 8958300529 


5 attachments
Attachment_2.jpg
1104K
Attachment_3_i.jpg
959K
Attachment_3_ii.jpg
1101K
Attachment_1.docx
18K
Attachment_4_Order.pdf
81K
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 12 August 2018 at 11:46

To: rishi saxena <rishi_s78@rediffmail.com>

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
I am the victim of exploitation done by some of the officer and employees of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.(UPCL). When I approached the Uttarakhand Electricity Regularity Commission than an enquiry was made and all the involved officials/employees were found the culprit for doing an unlawful act. But as usual, the higher authority has acted under the influence (financial/political) of all accused and release all of them by doing the formality of conducting internal corresponding with all of the accused. In the end, all the accused were saved by just giving an advice (Attachment-2) mentioning being more careful in future so that same couldn’t be repeated.   
when i asked (Attachment-1) to provide the copy of all corresponding, made among them (UPCL & accused, under RTI act -2005, I have been denied (Attachment-3i, ii) by giving the reference of the order (Attachment-4) of apex court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vst. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012]  
Judgement is concerned with the third party information but here sought information is concerned with the working of  Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.(UPCL).  which is a public authority under RTI Act 2005 so its obligatory duty is to provide sought information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of it consequently goal of Transparency act may be achieved but because of rampant corruption and cryptic dealings, concerned public staffs denied the sought information in order to escape from being exposed. Which is unprecedented and unfortunate. This represents sheer insolence to provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 on the part of erring staffs of the aforementioned public authority. 


Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Which is quite explicit that if the sought information can’t be denied to parliament or state legislature, then such information can’t be denied to citizenry under Right to Information Act 2005. Therefore you may continue and success will come to you ultimately. File first and second appeal. May God bless you. 
                                                                                                                                           With regards 
                                                                                                                                         Yogi M. P. Singh
[Quoted text hidden]

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

Judgement is concerned with the third party information but here sought information is concerned with the working of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.(UPCL). which is a public authority under RTI Act 2005 so its obligatory duty is to provide sought information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of it consequently goal of Transparency act may be achieved but because of rampant corruption and cryptic dealings, concerned public staffs denied the sought information in order to escape from being exposed. Which is unprecedented and unfortunate. This represents sheer insolence to provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 on the part of erring staffs of the aforementioned public authority.

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
I am the victim of exploitation done by some of the officer and employees of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.(UPCL). When I approached the Uttarakhand Electricity Regularity Commission than an enquiry was made and all the involved officials/employees were found the culprit for doing an unlawful act. But as usual, the higher authority has acted under the influence (financial/political) of all accused and release all of them by doing the formality of conducting internal corresponding with all of the accused. In the end, all the accused were saved by just giving an advice (Attachment-2) mentioning being more careful in future so that same couldn't be repeated.