Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted appeal as PIO Rajesh Shukla is running away from providing information as it may expose corrupts in L.D.A.

 


Your RTI Appeal filed successfully.

Please note down the details of registration.

Registration Number LKDPA/A/2021/60160

Name Dinesh Pratap Singh

Date of Filing 02-10-2021

Request filed with LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

 Contact Details  

Telephone Number 9918001643

Email-ID ldartionline@gmail.com

Online RTI Appeal Form Details

Public Authority Details :-

   

* Public Authority LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

   

Personal Details of Appellant:-

Request Registration Number LKDPA/R/2021/60285

Request Registration Date 04/08/2021

* Name Dinesh Pratap Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office

Pincode 231001

Country India

State Uttar Pradesh

Status Details not provided

Educational Status Literate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-9838919619

Email-ID myogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

Appeal Details :-

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

* Ground For Appeal No Response Within the Time Limit

* PIO of Public Authority approached Rajesh Shukla

PIO Order/Decision Number Details not provided

* PIO Order/Decision Date

((Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters) )

* Prayer or Relief Sought Registration Number LKDPA/R/2021/60285 Name Dinesh Pratap Singh Date of Filing 04/08/2021 Status REQUEST FORWARDED TO PIO as on 27/08/2021 Details of PIO :- Telephone Number:- 9918001532, Email Id:- Note :- You are advised to contact the above mentioned officer for further details.For more information, vide attached PDF document to this appeal. According to subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005-Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (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:It is 02 October 2021 today which means 1 month 29 days passed, but PIO did not provide any information which means PIO denied information as quite obvious from the subsection 2 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005 If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under subsection (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.  Consequently, PIO violated subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005. Since the matter concerns the deep-rooted corruption, therefore the public information officer of the public authority Lucknow Development Authority only played the cunning tricks to conceal information so that corrupt staffs of the Lucknow Development Authority may be shielded. Here corrupt staffs of the public authority Lucknow Development Authority not only committed the contempt of court by making the mockery of the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad but also committed other corrupt activities which maligned the image of the public authority Lucknow Development Authority. Undoubtedly, they may be punished, but feasible only when current staffs may not shield them. It is a well established truth that only corrupt shields corrupt. Our motive is good governance, but corruption prevailed in the government machinery, creating hurdles in the path to achieve its own ulterior design. Think about the gravity of the situation that the mobile phone number given on the portal is never picked up by the PIO concerned. If tried numerous times and mobile picked up then no substantial response is made by them. 

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB))


Registration Number LKDPA/A/2021/60160

Name Dinesh Pratap Singh

Date of Filing 02/10/2021

Status RTI APPEAL RECEIVED as on 02/10/2021

  Nodal Officer Details  

Telephone Number 9918001643

Email-ID ldartionline@gmail.com


Registration Number LKDPA/R/2021/60285

Name Dinesh Pratap Singh

Date of Filing 04/08/2021

Status REQUEST FORWARDED TO PIO as on 27/08/2021

Details of PIO :- Telephone Number:- 9918001532, Email Id:-

Note :- You are advised to contact the above mentioned officer for further details.

  Nodal Officer Details  

Telephone Number 9918001643

Email-ID ldartionline@gmail.com

Online RTI Request Form Details

Public Authority Details :-

   

* Public Authority LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

   

Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-

Registration Number LKDPA/R/2021/60285

Date of Filing 04/08/2021

* Name Dinesh Pratap Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office

Pincode 231001

Country India

State Uttar Pradesh

Status Details not provided

Educational Status Literate

  Above Graduate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-9838919619

Email-ID myogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

Request Details :-

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

((Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters) )

* Description of Information Sought This R.T.I. communique is submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh S/O Angad Prasad Singh who is the claimant of the plot of the land quite obvious from the order passed by the Lucknow bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. In the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006 filed in the Lucknow bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad filed by Anuradha Singh also named Guddi also named Aradhana Singh through her mother Beena Singh wife of Brijraj Singh also Beena Singh wife of Netrpal Singh. Whether in the same matter, to get remedy from various redressal bodies and get public aid by changing the name is not illegal? In the aforementioned writ, Anuradha Singh was directed by the High court of judicature to seek civil remedy from competent authority by filing a title suit. 

1-L.D.A. may provide the detail of title suit filed by multi-named lady Anuradha Singh in the record of L.D.A. Guddi Singh including the designation, name of the public staff who executed it with posting detail. 

2-L.D.A. may provide the copy of the order passed by the competent court decided the title suit of the Anuradha Singh in the compliance of the High court order in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. 

3-L.D.A. may provide the detail of the posting of the staffs executed the registry of plots to allottees with designation and name so that accountability may be fixed.

* Concerned PIO Rajesh Shukla

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB))

Beerbhadra Singh

To write blogs and applications for the deprived sections who can not raise their voices to stop their human rights violations by corrupt bureaucrats and executives.

1 Comments

Whatever comments you make, it is your responsibility to use facts. You may not make unwanted imputations against any body which may be baseless otherwise commentator itself will be responsible for the derogatory remarks made against any body proved to be false at any appropriate forum.

  1. 1-L.D.A. may provide the detail of title suit filed by multi-named lady Anuradha Singh in the record of L.D.A. Guddi Singh including the designation, name of the public staff who executed it with posting detail.

    2-L.D.A. may provide the copy of the order passed by the competent court decided the title suit of the Anuradha Singh in the compliance of the High court order in the Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006.

    3-L.D.A. may provide the detail of the posting of the staffs executed the registry of plots to allottees with designation and name so that accountability may be fixed.

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post