Whether First appellate authority of UPPCL will be instrumental to provide the sought information

EU468512573IN  
Booked at Booked On Destination
Pincode
Tariff Article
Category
Delivered at Delivered on
Not Available Not Available Not Availa Not availa Not Available Not Available Not Available
 

Detailed Track Events For EU468512573IN 

Date Time Office Event
15/11/2015 08:43:15 NSH LUCKNOW Item Received
15/11/2015 10:47:07 NSH LUCKNOW Item bagged for LUCKNOW G.P.O.
16/11/2015 07:48:37 LUCKNOW G.P.O. Bag Received
16/11/2015 07:56:33 LUCKNOW G.P.O. Bag Opened
16/11/2015 07:56:34 LUCKNOW G.P.O. Item Received

To direct the first appellate authority to take action on my first appeal in accordance with the law.

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

AttachmentsNov 8 (8 days ago)

to pmosbsupremecourturgent-actionhgovupcmupcsupcmdmdMDsec.sic
An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
08 November 2015
14:03
To   श्री हरि प्रसाद वर्मा , अपर सचिव तृतीय /प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी 
        कक्ष संख्या -३३१ ,शक्ति भवन (मुख्यालय ), १४ अशोक मार्ग , लखनऊ 
       दूरभाष और चलभाष-0522—2287704, 2288966, 9415900903 

Subject-Public Information Officer  –  

Mr. Deepak Shrivastava III
Under secretary (Public Information Officer section-15) ,Room No. 329 ,Shakti Bhawan (Head quarter), 14-Ashok Marg , Lucknow ,Uttar Pradesh ,Mobile No.9454468991
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.
                           ‘Yours  sincerely
                            Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

4 comments on Whether First appellate authority of UPPCL will be instrumental to provide the sought information

  1. 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.Whether this is not signal of anarchy in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation limited.

  2. Here most important question is that public information officer of uttar pradesh power corporation limited neither provided sought information nor made correspondence in regard to R.T.I.communique which is mockery of provisions of Right to Information Act2005. There is rampant corruption in the offices of uttar pradesh power corporation limited so how information can be expected from them as sought information may expose them. Most important thing is that uttar pradesh state information commission is playing negative role in providing sought information to information seekers. Uttar pradesh state information commission itself doesn't have regard for provisions of right to information act2005.

  3. same case related to me…. i also pray for seeking information to pio uppcl on march 21st 2016 related to recruitment process and purpose to know my own written & interview marks e.t.c. but public information officer of uttar pradesh power corporation limited neither provided sought information nor made correspondence in regard .As well as i know most of the rti application which is related to recruitment process advt no-05/VSA/JE/2015 not concerned by authority….
    I would like to submit first appeal but i have a doubt that any fee for first appeal should be paid/not paid,,, please help me……….chauhanne@yahoo.com

  4. In Government of Uttar Pradesh ,there is no such fee for first appeal submitted under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 only Rs.10 is charged as fee when R.T.I. Communique is submitted under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005. If the sought information is concerned with the public authority ,then such R.T.I. Communique must be transferred to PIO of another public authority under subsection 3 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 with which matter is closely connected or partly connected. Here PIO violated the provisions of R.T.I.Act 2005.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: