Second appeal against CPIO NCH as he denied the sought information in order to conceal wrongdoings.

Online appeal application submitted
Inbox
x
Central Information Commission (CIC) no-reply@nic.in via nic.in 
23:40 (0 minutes ago)
    to me, feedback-cic
Dear Yogi M P Singh,
Your online appeal is diarised. Details are given below:
1
Diary Number
632398
2
Diary date
27-09-2018
Please logon to : www.cic.gov.in for any further details.
Regards,
Central Information Commission (CIC)

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
From the reply of Prof Suresh Mishra, ipso facto obvious he is incompetent for the post of CPIO and may not be granted a responsible chair for sake of country.
1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 27 September 2018 at 22:45
To: uspc-ca@nic.in, d.sonkar@nic.in, dircoop-ca@nic.in, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>, hgovup@up.nic.in, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>

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 project director designated as project director at national consumer helpline, a centre for consumer studies, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi-110002, 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,
Prof Suresh Mishra, Project Director,
at national consumer helpline, a centre for consumer studies, 
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi-110002, 
in the ministry of consumer affairs.  
2- Shri S. S. Thakur, Director (PG) and First Appellate Authority,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Subject-CPIO through its communication dated 18/05/2018 letter no. CD/NCH/F-09/233 addressed to appellant, denied the sought information on the flimsy and cryptic grounds and in a mischievous way. He 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-Please direct concerned staffs of Micromax company to reply five queries as made by the information seeker in Complaint Number: 636695, Complaint Reg Date: 2018-03-09 01:14:17. For detail, vide attached documents.

2-On website whether queries are replied by corresponding responses or otherwise in the mysterious and cryptic way. 


If otherwise can be replied then provide circulars and guidelines.
Reply of CPIO is as – Reply:- You have not sought information from the public authority under RTI Act. This does not fall within the purview of the Grievance Cell of this Department. You may file the complaint with the concerned company or with the Consumer Forum of your area to resolve of your complaint.
Whether aforementioned reply touch the sought information in any way? If the information sought was not under Right to Information Act 2005, then under section 4 (1) (d), he had to provide the reason/logic in regard to the conclusion which deprived the information seeker of the sought information. I didn’t seek redress of grievance under the aforementioned R.T.I. Communique so the second sentence/para of reply may be excluded. Third sentence or para may be also excluded as appellant didn’t seek suggestion from the CPIO that what must he do in order to seek justice to protect his consumer rights? 
   

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, the 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 the 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-27-09-2018              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.


6 attachments
document (1).pdf
78K
document.pdf
181K
Reply of CPIO consumer affairs.pdf
421K
Reply of FAA consumer affairs.pdf
419K
Online RTI Appeal Form Details and its status.pdf
608K
RTI Application and its status.pdf
440K
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

Whether aforementioned reply touch the sought information in any way? If the information sought was not under Right to Information Act 2005, then under section 4 (1) (d), he had to provide the reason/logic in regard to the conclusion which deprived the information seeker of the sought information. I didn't seek redress of grievance under the aforementioned R.T.I. Communique so the second sentence/para of reply may be excluded. Third sentence or para may be also excluded as appellant didn't seek suggestion from the CPIO that what must he do in order to seek justice to protect his consumer rights?

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Whether aforementioned reply touch the sought information in any way? If the information sought was not under Right to Information Act 2005, then under section 4 (1) (d), he had to provide the reason/logic in regard to the conclusion which deprived the information seeker of the sought information. I didn't seek redress of grievance under the aforementioned R.T.I. Communique so the second sentence/para of reply may be excluded. Third sentence or para may be also excluded as appellant didn't seek suggestion from the CPIO that what must he do in order to seek justice to protect his consumer rights?