Registrar Uttar Pradesh state information commission itself making mockery of Right to Information Act 2005.

Please direct concerned to take action against the wrongdoers who deprived the information seeker from seeking information.

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

Attachments1:57 PM (0 minutes ago)

to pmosbsupremecourturgent-actionhgovupcsupcmupsec.sic
Whether a registrar has moral right to remain at the post of Registrar of Uttar Pradesh state information commission who can’t distinguish between R.T.I. Cmmunique submitted under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 and an appeal submitted under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005  before the commission.
29 January 2016
13:26
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 please take a glance of subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005.
6
(1)
A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—
(a)
the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
(b)
the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
(3)
A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether any action was taken by the concerned on the following representation of your applicant. 
Please direct concerned to curb the anarchy in the state where rule of law has been out of context.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    Jan 5
    to pmosb, sec.sic, hgovup, supremecourt, urgent-action, cmup, csup, secy-cic
Uttar Pradesh state information commission itself made the mockery of Right to Information Act 2005 and letter of Registrar letter no. R-6118/D dated-23/11/2015 is the reflection his incompetency and dereliction of duty. Whether eight months time was insufficient for taking the perusal of submissions.
05 January 2016
18:47
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 whether under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005,information is sought or appeal is made. According to Registrar,UPSIC appeal is made as ipsofacto obvious from the aforesaid letter . In the individual view of your applicant ,post of registrar is an accountable post who must be well acquainted with the law of land if not feasible at least has knowledge of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to him your applicant didn’t  submit the first appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005. Hon’ble Sir first appeal is obligatory but not mandatory requirement for the second appeal filed under subsection 3 of section 19 but most blunder was committed by the registrar UPSIC is that he considered R.T.I. Communique under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 as appeal submitted under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 deliberately in order to withhold sought information. This is reflexion of dubious character of registrar ,Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that most surprising fact is that an individual appointed at the post registrar can’t differentiate between R.T.I. Communique and R.T.I. Appeal . This incompetent person treated R.T.I. Communique as an appeal while postal order as R.T.I. Fee was attached with the communication and in Uttar Pradesh ,fee is charged under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 but not under section 19(1) and 19(3). Please take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
Attachments area
                   
 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 

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: