Why CIC itself, sent the communication after one month while it had given only one month time to reply.

Why CIC itself, sent
the communication after one month while it had given only one month time to
reply. This shows that there is sheer lack of accountability in the function of CIC staff. Whether such ombudsman can be instrumental in providing information to information seekers. 

16
November 2014
19:23
In
the central Information Commission
Central
Registry ,Room No.326,Wing-B,IInd Floor ,August Kranti Bhawan ,Bhikaji Cama
Place ,New Delhi-110066,Diary No.168641. in
reference of CIC letter dated-10.10.2014 received on 14.11.2014 from post man. Speed post reached in 1 month 5 days from New Delhi to
Mirzapur.
To
Hon’ble
Chief Information Commissioner/companion Information Commissioners, Government
of India, New Delhi
Subject-In
order to correct the lacunae in the second appeal under subsection 3 of section
19 of Right to Information Act 2005, submitted by your appellant earlier
through e-mail dated 6-Sept-2014,Saturday latter hard copy of e-mail was sent
through speed registered post which was received in CIC on 16-Sept-2014 as
obvious from the communication of registry of Chief Information Commission as
aforementioned. This second appeal is diarised with serial number- Diary No.168641.
With
due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir
to the following index of submitted documents.
1-Page-1
is the communication of CIC dated-10.10.2014 bearing diary No.168641 seeking
few documents.
2-Submissions
dated 6-Sept-2014 from page 2 to 11 an appeal under subsection 3 of section 19
of Right to Information Act 2005.
3-
Submissions dated 05.06.2014 from page 12 to 15 is R.T.I. communiqué submitted
under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 before CPIO
High court at Allahabad.
4-Page
16 is the letter dated 28-April-2014 of Government of Uttar Pradesh through its
under secretary addressed to registrar general ,High court of judicature at
Allahabad and copy was sent to your appellant.
5-Page
17 is the letter dated 11.06.2014 of CPIO ,High court of judicature at
Allahabad as denial of sought information on flimsy ground.
6-Submissions
dated 14.06.2014 through speed registered post before registrar general, High
court of judicature at Allahabad is an appeal under subsection 1 of section 19
of Right to Information Act 2005.
7-Pages
20,21 and 22 is the communication of CPIO ,High court of judicature at
Allahabad containing the order passed by Registrar General/first appellate
authority on 13-july-2014 which is ultra-vires to provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005
and partial ,High court of judicature at Allahabad.
This
is humble request of your appellant to you Hon’ble Sir that please direct
concerned to redress my grievance in accordance with the law as matter is
concerned with the attack on dignity of women and moral turpitude of a judicial
member which ashamed us before world community. For this your appellant shall
ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yours
sincerely
Dated-17-11-2014
Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram,
Jabalpur Road ,District-Mirzapur (U.P.),India
जज ने सीना छुआ और सलवार उतारने को कहा…  गोंडा ज़िले मेंदो लड़कियों ने पुलिस में शिकायत दर्ज कराई है कि एक जज ने अपने चैंबर में उनके साथ छेड़छाड़ की.        
                     
                     
      
पीड़ित लड़कियों में से एक की उम्र तेरह साल हैऔर दूसरीकी इक्कीस सालदोनों अलगअलग परिवारों से हैं और दोनों के साथ यह घटना एक ही दिन पर अलग समय पर हुई.                 
              
एक लड़की का आरोप है कि जज ने उससे शॉल हटाकर कपड़े उतारने को कहाजिससे वह उसकीउम्र का पता लगा सके.
लड़की ने अपने बयान में कहा है कि इसके बाद जज ने उसका सीना छुआ और सलवार उतारने को कहाइस पर लड़की रोने लगीऔर कहा कि यह सब मुझसे नही होगा.                  
                     
   
दूसरी लड़की ने भी इसी तरह काबयान दिया हैउसका कहना है कि जज ने कपड़े  उतारने पर गलत बयान लिखने की धमकी भी दी.                     
             
अतिरिक्त पुलिस महा निदेशक अरुण कुमार का कहना है कि चूँकि यहशिकायत जज के अपनी अदालत के कार्य से सम्बन्धित हैइसलिए पुलिस ने मुकदमा सीधे मुकदमा दर्ज करने के बजाय जिलाजज के अलावा हाईकोर्ट के रजिस्ट्रार जनरल को भी शिकायत भेज दी है.
पता चला है कि गृह विभाग ने इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट के चीफ जस्टिस के कार्यालय को भी पूरी जानकारी भेज दी है और उनके रुख काइन्तजार किया जा रहा है.
CPIO High court may be directed to provide sought information.
   
  
 Mahesh
Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh
 <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:03 AM
To:
supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action
<urgent-action@ohchr.org>, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, secypg
<secypg@nic.in>, ddpg2-arpg <ddpg2-arpg@nic.in>,
“hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>,
csup <csup@up.nic.in>, “ak.dash” <ak.dash@nic.in>,
secy-cic <secy-cic@nic.in>
To
 
    Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners
,Government
of India.
Appellant-Mahesh
Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P. Singh)
Mohalla-Surekapuram
,Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur
,State-Uttar Pradesh , Country-India
 
                     
      Versus
Respondents-
1-Registrar
(A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public Information Officer , High
court
of judicature at Allahabad , Allahabad .
2-Registrar
General /First Appellate Authority under Right to
Information
Act 2005 ,High court of judicature at Allahabad ,
Allahabad
.
Prayer-To
direct concerned to entertain my appeal in accordance with
the
law. Registrar (A/C & Exam)/I/C Central Public Information Officer
be
directed to provide information as sought by information seeker.
Short
submissions .
1-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that your applicant sought
following
information from CPIO High court-
Prayer-Please
made available information in regard to aforesaid letter
no. 18
C.M./two-4-2014-16-J/2011 dated-28-April-2014 as –
1-notings
2-any action taken 3-if no action taken ,cause of sparing
the
wrongdoer. Aforesaid sought information kindly be made available
within
specified time as specified under subsection 1 of section 7 of
Right
to Information Act 2005.
Note-Postal
orders from 75 G  239467 to 75 G 239476 ,each of Rs. 50.00
thus
total Rs.500.00 payable to Registrar General High Court is
enclosed
with this RTI communique as RTI fee in accordance with the
High
Court rules 2006.
2-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that  why CPIO didn’t return
the
Postal orders submitted by your appellant and sought additional
fee
which was illegal? CPIO returned the postal order when Registrar
general
directed him to do so. Your appellant had already submitted
the
postal orders in district court two times   which was accepted and
even
earlier CPIO itself didn’t raise the issue of postal orders .
Here
behaviour of CPIO is cryptic which must be checked.
This
is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that
Hon’ble
Sir may take appropriate action in accordance with the law so
that
coterie of wrongdoers who wants their supremacy at the cost of
anarchy
may be subjected to penal proceedings of law of land. For this
your
applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
 
                     
                     
    Yours sincerely
 
                     
         Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram
, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, State-Uttar
Pradesh,
Country- India

2 comments on Why CIC itself, sent the communication after one month while it had given only one month time to reply.

  1. Why CIC itself, sent the communication after one month while it had given only one month time to reply. This shows that there is sheer lack of accountability in the function of CIC staff. Whether such ombudsman can be instrumental in providing information to information seekers. चुकि मामला एक ADJ से सम्बन्धित हैं इसलिए देश की साख को दाव पर रख कर सभी उसे बचाने में लग गए |कुछ जजों के कारनामों से पूरे विश्व समुदाय के समक्ष हमें लज्जित होना पड़ रहा हैं किन्तु हमारे जिम्मेदार लोकसेवक हर जुगत लगा रहे हैं उन्हें सुरक्षित करने का |यदि हम इसी तरह अपराधियों को संरक्षण देते रहे तो हमारा देश कहा जाएगा |सोचिये महिलाए जजों के चैम्बर में सुरक्षित नहीं हैं और अपराधियों के खिलाफ कार्यवाही के बजाय उन लोगों की आवाज दबाई जा रही हैं जो कार्यवाही की मांग कर रहे हैं |

  2. वास्तव में यह तथ्य आश्चर्य जनक हैं की जब एक ही महीने का समय दिया गया तो लेटर पहुचने में एक महीने पांच दिन क्यों लगे | प्रश्न यह उठता हैं की क्या केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग अपने स्टाफ की गलती के लिए इनफार्मेशन सीकर को परेशान कर सकता हैं ? क्या इस देश प्रभावी ब्यक्तियों को महिलाओं की अस्मिता के साथ खेलने की पूर्ण स्वतंत्रता हैं |यदि अपराधी के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही हुई होती तो सूचना उपलब्ध कराने में कौन हर्ज था | क्या हमारा देश विधि सम्मत नियमो से चलता हैं |

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: