didn’t make available sought information as sought by your appellant through R.T.I. Communique dated 30/09/2015 which was delivered in the office of public information officer on 3-10-2015 ipsofacto obvious from online tracking of speed registered post.
With due respect your appellant 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 subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005 ,prescribed time to provide sought Information to information seeker is 30 days which has been expired .
7. Disposal of request.—(/) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request. either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your appellant made contact to aforesaid PIO on his Mobile number more than 10 times but he only assured falsely to your appellant in order to provide sought information. Most surprising is that he didn’t deem it fit to make correspondence to information seeker and stipulated time to provide sought information expired.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when the public information officer in the key office of UPPCL takes under teeth the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 ,then think about the subordinate offices of Uttar Pradesh power corporation limited. In the similar manner executive engineer ,EDD II Mirzapur didn’t provide access to information to your appellant. Rule of law advocates the supremacy of law but here what is going on is sheer anarchy. Whether our public functionaries are not making mockery of law of land. Whether such cryptic dealings are not lowering the dignity of public institutions.
Prof. de-Smith explain its content: “that laws as enacted by Parliament be faithfully
executed by officials; that orders of courts should be obeyed; that individuals wishing to
enforce the law should have reasonable access to the courts; that no person should be
condemned unheard, and that power should not be arbitrarily exercised.”3 As Wade4 says
that the rule of law requires the government should be subject to law, rather than the law
subject to the government.
UPSIC always remained failed in regard to performance of its duty which is the root cause of failure of Right to Information Act 2005 in the state.
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.