|It has been practice not to provide sought information under R.T.I. Act 2005 if it is listed after two and half years in commission and commission if orders then information is provided.Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <email@example.com>
6 December 2019 at 15:09
To: Anjali Anand Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, pmosb <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, supremecourt <firstname.lastname@example.org>, urgent-action <email@example.com>
श्री मान जी जब प्रथम अपीली अधिकारी ने कोई जवाब दिया ही नही तो आपके लिमिटेशन टाइम बार्ड का आधार क्या रहा १५ दिन की देरी तो इस बात को लेकर हो गयी क्यों की अपीलार्थी केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग के समय को जो की मूल्यवान है व्यर्थ नष्ट नही करना चाहता था इसलिए प्रथम अपीली अधिकारी के निर्णय का इन्तजार कर रहा था | वैसे भी आप लोगो की इक्षा नही है लोक हित में सूचना उपलब्ध कराने की तो रहने दे | मै तो छात्र के लिए संघर्ष कर रहा था और वायु सेना का विभाग अपने भ्रष्टाचार के कारण सूचनाए देने से वैसे भी भाग रहा है | धन्यवाद श्री मान जी इश्वर न्याय करे |
Ipso facto obvious that information sought through communique dated-22/04/2019.
CPIO made the reply Air HQ/23401//204/4/16879/E/PS dated 24-May-2019 quite obvious from the attached document with the representation.
Applicant submitted the first appeal on 31/05/2019 which was not replied by the First Appellate Authority.
Now appellant made the second appeal on 18/11/2019 Which means gap between first and second appeal is five months fifteen days.
Sir one month and one week time is provided to FIRST Appellate Authority in order to respond the appeal in accordance with the law. But in this country no public authority acts within prescribed time limit and here one one week is computation period of the First Appeal.
Still I had three months time to file second appeal. Here first appellate authority made the mockery of R.T.I. Act 2005 but it did not remain visible to you. Because of my 15 days delay you are seeking condonation from the appellant. Sir after one year four months CPIO High court of Judicature Allahabad provided me denial of sought information which was accepted by chief information commissioner of India. I made the request to impose pecuniary penalty on the erring CPIO repeatedly but my request was overlooked. Registrar general High court of Judicature Allahabad falsely informed CIC that his office did not entertain appeal because appeal was not received in his office but false information accepted by CIC and my authentic proofs provided to CIC were overlooked by Chief Information Commissioner of India. Undoubtedly whatever was done by deputy registrar is the part of cryptic dealings of the CIC NOTHING else.
DAK Entry Details
DAK recieved Date : 18-11-2019 Letter Dated : NA Letter Number : NA Diary Number : 657275
DAK Classification Appeal/Complaint No. : NA Choose Category : NA
Sender Belongs to : NA Mode Of Communication : NA Name : Yogi M P Singh
Gender : Male Country : India Address : Mohalla Surekapuram Jabalpur Road
State/Ut : Uttar Pradesh District : Mirzapur City/Village : Mirzapur city Pincode : 231001
Telephone : NA Mobile No. : 7379105911 Email ID : firstname.lastname@example.org
Dealing Officer/Registry : Central Registration
Pasted from <https://dsscic.nic.in/appeal-comp-status-dak-
(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:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of
ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
the appeal in time.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 14:37, Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <email@example.com> wrote:
An appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 as CPIO did not provide the sought information on flimsy ground and FAA blindly supported the withheld of sought information by the CPIO cryptically by not entertaining the first appeal submitted under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
Chief Information Commissioner of India
The Central Information Commission,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi – 110 067
Appellant –Yogi M. P. Singh, Mohalla-Surekapuram
Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code -231001
1-Central Public Information Officer, Shri S. Padmanabha (SO, Schl. DBT)
More detail is not available on the portal
2-First Appellate Authority, Air Marshal PP Bapat VSM, Air Officer in-charge Administration, Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhawan) Rafi Marg, New Delhi -110106
Sir, in this case, subsection 1 J section 8 is not applicable as the information sought on behalf of aggrieved aspirant Satyjeet whose affidavit and CPIO denial of sought information is attached to this appeal under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
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 to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of the status of the R.T.I. Communique.
Enter Registration Number MODEF/R/2019/80463
Name Yogi M P Singh
Date of filing 22/04/2019
Public Authority Department of Defence
Status REQUEST PHYSICALLY TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Date of action 23/04/2019
Details of Public Authority :- Indian Air Force
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number 011-23016813
Email Id firstname.lastname@example.org
Detail of the R.T.I. Communique is attached to the appeal.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to CPIO reply
Air HQ/23401//204/4/16879/E/PS dated 24-May-2019
– Sought information under Right to Information Act 2005 is personal which disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual. Therefore sought information is denied under subsection 1 J section 8 of Right to Information Act 2005.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
A SCHEDULED TEST FOR AIRMEN RECRUITMENT: Mar 2019, On behalf of Satyjeet, applicant invites the following information from respected CPIO in regard to the aforementioned recruitment.
A 1-Answer sheet of physics of Satyjeet whose Registration No: 19030019135 of group X.
A 2-Answer sheet of the math of Satyjeet whose Registration No: 19030019135 of group X
Mark sheet is herewith attached.
Here it is crystal clear that aforementioned information is sought by the appellant on behalf of the aggrieved aspirant Satyjeet so how the information is personal if individual itself is seeking information as not satisfied with the cryptic dealings of the recruiting agency? Hon’ble Sir affidavit of the Satyjeet addressed to appellate authority and others is attached to this appeal.
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to CPIO sought information is not concerned with the any public activity or public interest. Whether to conduct “A SCHEDULED TEST FOR AIRMEN RECRUITMENT: Mar 2019” this exam by recruiting agency is not public activity and in the wide public interest it must be carried out in transparent and accountable manner? Here activity of the recruiting agency is the pure public work consequently sought information is not exempted from the disclosure under section 8 and 9 of the transparency act 2005.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 No. 22 of 2005
[15th June, 2005.] An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Whether denial of the sought information would be plausible by misinterpreting the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005? Undoubtedly act of CPIO is ultra vires to august act i.e, Right to Information Act 2005 and reflection of the sheer insolence.
This is a humble request of the 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 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.
Date-18-11-2019 Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.