Whether the sought information would be made available by PIO ,UPSIC ,as concerned with zero action.

Whether this is not criminal breach of trust that information
commissioner once impose the penalty after number of hearings but latter revoke
it in the absence of complainants by colluding with the corrupt staff of
Government.
Yogi M. P. Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Feb
15
    to supremecourt, sec.sic, pmosb, urgent-action, hgovup, cmup, csup
Whether this is rule of law and we are being ruled under the
provisions of constitution of India by not imposing any penalty on errant PIOs
in two financial years in Mirzapur district who violated the provisions of
Right to Information Act 2005. Ipsofacto obvious that District administration
directly supported the wrongdoer PIOs but direct and circumstantial evidences
are showing that information commission of Government of Uttar Pradesh and
senior officers in the state capital indirectly supported the wrongdoers PIOs.
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 every
constitutional institutional institution maintain its credibility and dignity
by being accountable to its functions delivered by its staff. Here the role of
UPSIC was too much negative as it once sent the recovery order to district
magistrate Mirzapur district never tried to know the compliance of its order.
It was more surprising that when your applicant tried to drew the attention yet
they didn’t show any moral support to your applicant and reminder to district
administration .
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that more emphasis of
concerned information commissioner was to revoke  its imposed penalties instead of compliance.
Ipsofacto obvious that three years long lasting struggle of your applicant,
made available information that five pecuniary penalties were imposed by UPSIC
on wrongdoer PIOs but when your applicant sought compliance of order then it
was disclosed by PIO collectorate Mirzapur that two imposed penalties have been
revoked by UPSIC itself.
 3-It is submitted before
the Hon’ble Sir that whether any action was taken by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh /Government of India on the following submitted representation-This
email representation is still showing that rest of three is still to be
recovered from the salaries of concerned wrondoer PIOs. 
In two financial years only two PIOs were penalized by UPSIC but not
a single penny was recovered from their salary. Whether this is not anarchy. As
two penalties were imposed on B.S.A. Mirzapur and one on B.D.O. Chhanbey.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
12/4/14
to sec.sic, supremecourt, pmosb, hgovup, cmup, urgent-action, csup
 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
Hon’ble Sir may take a glance of attachment in the PDF form containing 18 pages
with this e-mail representation, categorically showing that our state is
governed by lawlessness and sheer anarchy. Whether  this is not
corruption that erring PIOs who are floating all set up standard norms and
violating the provisions of Right to Information are not being subjected to
penal action because of tacit understanding between them and accountable public
functionaries in the state.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Hon’ble Sir may take a glance of following e-mail representation submitted
before various public authorities but no accountable public functionary desires
to curb this jungle raj. It seems that all have put their hands in the globe of
corruption.
At least penalty must also be recovered from
B.D.O. but commissioner rural development overlooked
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Mar 15
to
urgent-action, pmosb, supremecourt, hgovup, cmup, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg,
sec.sic
Hon’ble Sir-Whether any
action will be taken to direct concerned to recover penalty from B.D.O. Bhola
Nath Kannaujia as requested by your applicant under point 2-
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.M.
Mirzapur requested to commissioner ,Rural development ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow
through letter 947 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from
the salary of aforesaid B.D.O. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised
to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief
secretary.
 Hon’ble Sir
This is reminder e-mail. I have sent you so many reminders then D.M. Mirzapur
told me that in two financial years only two PIOs are punished but their
penalties have to recovered from their salary. The progress is before you
Hon’ble Sir. At least letters should be sent if penalty couldn’t be recovered
so that they may not make travesty of justice/provisions of Transparency act.
Your applicant expects that at least his representation may be endorsed to
concern with stern advice note. For this your applicant shall ever pray you
Hon’ble Sir. 
Director of basic education Uttar Pradesh Lucknow
directed PIO /District B.S.A. Mirzapur to made available information.
The content of the letter is as follows.
Sender-Director, Basic education ,Uttar Pradesh ,
Lucknow
To
             
Public Information Officer /District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (B.S.A.) ,Mirzapur
Letter No. Educationa Directorate /Basic
/R.T.I./2013/14  Dated-4.2.2014
Subject-In regard to made available information
under Right to Information Act 2005 .
Gentle man,
                       
Aforesaid subject is addressed to Director ,Basic Education ,Uttar Pradesh
,Lucknow as well as endorsed to others of letter of public information officer
/additional district magistrate  F/R collectorate Mirzapur dated 13.1.2014
, take the perusal of this letter . This letter has been received from personal
secretary /public information officer ,Chief secretary ,Government of Uttar
Pradesh in order to dispose it.
In respect of this letter ,I was directed that
please take necessary steps in the concerned matter and made available the
sought information to complainant within time under Right to Information Act
2005 and ensure to  apprise the concerned.
Annexure as
aforesaid             
With regard
                                
Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh
,Lucknow
   Endorsed to. Letter No. E.D.
B./General education ,R.T.I./27612-16 /2013-14 same date
1-copy to PIO /Additional Director basic
education. Uttar Pradesh ,Allahabad
2-copy to PIO/Divisional assistant director basic
education Varanasi .
3-copy to concerned assistant, camp office Right
to Information ,Lucknow
4-copy to Yogi M. P. Singh Resident-Surekapuram ,
Jabalpur Road , Mirzapur.
                                    
Initial of APIO 3.2.14  
                             
Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh
,Lucknow 
In two financial years ,only three imposed penalties on two
erring PIOs but unfortunately still to be recovered.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
8:08 PM (3 minutes ago)
to pmosb, hgovup, urgent-action, cmup, supremecourt, cj, csup, secypg, ddpg2-arpg, sec.sic, lokayukta, uphrclko
Hon’ble Sir. 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 under
section 4 (1)(d)
Every public authority shall—
provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial
decisions to affected persons.
Hon’ble Sir B.D.O. Chhanbey Bhola Nath Kannaujia and B.S.A.
Mirzapur Dinesh Kumar Yadav didn’t deposit the imposed penalty as imposed under
section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005 by U.P.S.I.C. . Whether wrongdoer
B.D.O. will deposit Rs. 25 thousand rupees with interest and B.S.A. will
deposit Rs. 50 thousand with interest as required by law to the treasury.
Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of attached PDF.
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.M.
Mirzapur requested to commissioner ,Rural development ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow
through letter 947 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from
the salary of aforesaid B.D.O. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised
to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief
secretary. Likewise D.M. Mirzapur  requested to Director , Basic Education
, Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 948 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed
penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.S.A. and may be
deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary
CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary . Please take a glance of
attached PDF. Whether complainant will not be made available sought
information. In two financial years ,only three penalties have been made by
UPSIC and not a coin was recovered by government functionaries still and now
indirectly D.M. Mirzapur is overlooking the complainant to whom he has to
furnish access to information.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that section 6 of Right
to Information Act 2005 (3)
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting
for an information,—
(i)
   which is held by another
public            
authority; or
(ii)
the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the
functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall
transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other
public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this
sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five
days from the date of receipt of the application.
Whether D.M. Mirzapur don’t want to
make available information to your applicant if yes then why? Here it is
obvious that sought information is held by Commissioner ,rural development and
Director ,basic education so concerned may be directed by the competent
authority in order to make available the information as sought by information
seeker. Please take a glance of following link-
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/12/it-is-unfortunate-that-no-pio-is_22.html
  This is humble request of your applicant to direct
concerned authority to make available sought information.  For this your
applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                            
 Yours sincerely
                           Yogi
M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur
(U.P.) India.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
there is concrete evidence but no wrongdoer is being punished whether such act
of government itself not promoting wrongdoings/anarchy in the public
institutions. Here this question arises that whether personnel appointed in the
transparency panel deliberately avoiding the non-compliance of its orders or
incompetent to get compliance of their orders. Whether such anarchy is not
making our transparency panel teeth-less.
                                              
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that please take
appropriate steps so that lawlessness being created because of non compliance
of orders of UPSIC causing piling up of complaints in the office of ombudsman
must be taken into account and such bad practice must be curbed. For
this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                                                            
Yours sincerely
                                                                                                            Yogi
M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road ,
Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.),India  
04 December 2014
Attachments area
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 .

2 comments on Whether the sought information would be made available by PIO ,UPSIC ,as concerned with zero action.

  1. Whether complainant will not be made available sought information. In two financial years ,only three penalties have been imposed by UPSIC and not a coin was recovered by government functionaries still and now indirectly D.M. Mirzapur is overlooking the complainant to whom he has to furnish access to information.
    3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 (3)

  2. This is too much precarious situation. If there will be no fear of penal action in the mind of erring public information officer ,then they will easily procrastinate on the submitted RTI Cmmuniques and violate the provisions of transparency act. Whether in such circumstances Right to Information Act 2005 can achieve its goal. Obviously this is negative signal and attempts must be made to curb it.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: