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<firstname.lastname@example.org>
8:54 PM (0 minutes ago)
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
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.
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.