U.P.S.I.C. itself remained fail to be instrumental in providing information to information seekers but from communication showing itself vigilant

 




Beerbhadra Singh <myogimpsingh@gmail.com>

To reject arbitrarily information sought by information seeker, State Bank of India has made its practice ipso facto.
1 message

Beerbhadra Singh <myogimpsingh@gmail.com>Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:43 AM
To: rmvns.fimmluc@sbi.co.in, agmbopmfimm.lholuc@sbi.co.in, agmpne.lholuc@sbi.co.in, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, Presidents Secretariat <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, Anjali Anand Srivastava <secy-cic@nic.in>
An appeal under sub section 3 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 against rejection of the sought information by the CPIO to conceal sought information and harass/frustrate the appellant.

To

                                  Chief Information Commissioner of India

                                The Central Information Commission,

                                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,

                              New Delhi - 110 067

Appellant Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla-Surekapuram

Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code -231001

                Versus

Respondent 1-Central Public Information Officer, CPIO Details :-Mr. Shirish, Bharti, Regional Manager State Bank of India, Regional Business Office 7  (RM RBO 7) Administrative Office , VARANASI, PIN Code-221002

Phone: 8795824306 Email- rmvns.fimmluc@sbi.co.in

Respondent 2-First Appellate Authority Details :- Alok Kumar S Sinha, General Manager (NW-III)

State Bank of India, Business and Operations Performance, Monitoring Department Network III, Local Head Office, Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow, PIN Code-226001

Phone: 0522-2295133 Email- agmbopmfimm.lholuc@sbi.co.in

Prayer-Cryptic and willful denial of sought Information by Central Public Information Officer. 
Request Registration Number SBILW/R/E/22/00334 Request Registration Date 18/04/2022 Name Yogi M P Singh was closed arbitrarily by CPIO on 31 May 2022 i.e. after 53 days without providing any information. 
The appellant submitted appeal on  01 June 2022 RTI Appeal Registration number SBILW/A/E/22/00146 which was disposed by respondent 2 i.e. FAA ON 30 June 2022 by providing an illegible copy of communication dated 24 June 2022 addressed to appellant as incomplete and misleading information which is still unavailable on the part CPIO ipso facto. 
Here the FAA has failed to ensure compliance of providing information through CPIO.  
Here wilful denial of information by CPIO invites action under section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005. 
Sought Information-Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India may provide the following information point wise as sought by the information seeker within stipulated time as prescribed under subsection 1 of section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005. 

1-Posting details of the entire staff working in the main branch of the state bank of India District-Mirzapur including date of joining in the district Mirzapur.

2-Name and designation of the staff of the State Bank of India who processed the following grievance 

Grievance Status for registration number : DEABD/E/2022/22619 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Yogi M. P. Singh Date of Receipt 24/03/2022 Received By Ministry/Department Financial Services (Banking Division) which details are attached in the following parras. 

3-Name and designation of the staff of the State Bank of India who is processing the appeal Appeal Number DEABD/E/A/22/0006449 Date of Receipt 14/04/2022

4-Name and designation of the staff of the State Bank of India who processed the deduction of the installments and levied penalties from the current account of the Sudarshan Maurya.

5-Provide the details of the Non Performing Assets  /NPA of the financial year 2021-2022 of the main branch. 
Reply of the CPIO -No information made available by the CPIO still to information seeker cum appellant. 
Decision of the FAA-FAA falsely stated in its decision that CPIO made available information to appellant through communication Letter number-R.B.O. 7/F.A./ 462 A dated 24 June 2022 after appeal. 
Factual position is aforemntioned communication dated 24 June 2022 never dispatched to appellant. Copy of this communication provided by FAA through its communication 30 June 2022 is illegible and some how perused after scanning in high resolution scanner. Photographs are attached to this email. 
With due respect, the applicant invites the kind attention of the Honourable Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-I pray before the Honourable Sir that  51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.
2-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that First Appellate Authority, Alok Kumar S Sinha must tell the appellant, how can RM RBO 7 VARANASI of SBI Lucknow circle deny the information from point 1 to 4 by taking recourse of the subsection 1 J of section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005 which states as floows-
information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
      Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
3-I pray before the Honourable Sir that from point 1 to 4, the appellant has not sought any individual information as posting details, name and designation public staff performing public work can not be exempted from disclosure because such information must be in public domain and it is obligatory duty of public authority to disclose it under section 4 of the Right to Information Act 2005. 
4-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that since the matter is concerning deep rooted corruption in the working of the public authority State Bank of India therefore CPIO is running away from providing information to the information seeker on the flimsy ground not relevant herewith raised matter. 
5-I pray before the Honourable Sir that flowing is the status of the submitted online RTI application by the appellant.
Enter Registration Number SBILW/R/E/22/00334
Name Yogi M P Singh Received Date 18/04/2022 Public Authority SBI Lucknow Circle
Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF Date of action 31/05/2022 Reply :- dispose off
CPIO Details :- RM RBO 7 VARANASI
Phone: 8795824306 Email Id rmvns[dot]fimmluc[at]sbi[dot]co[dot]in
First Appellate Authority Details :- Alok Kumar S Sinha
Phone: 0522-2295133 Email Id agmbopmfimm[dot]lholuc[at]sbi[dot]co[dot]in
Nodal Officer Details :- Telephone Number 05222295363 Email Id agmpne[dot]lholuc[at]sbi[dot]co[dot]in
6-It is submitted before the Honourable Sir that flowing is the status of the submitted online appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005 by the appellant.
Enter Registration Number SBILW/A/E/22/00146
Name Yogi M P Singh Received Date 01/06/2022 Public Authority SBI Lucknow Circle
Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF Date of action 30/06/2022
Reply :- DISPOSED VIDE LETTER NO.BOPM-III/RTI/22-23/123 DATED - 30/06/2022 View Document
First Appellate Authority Details :- Alok Kumar S Sinha Phone: 0522-2295133 Email Id agmbopmfimm[dot]lholuc[at]sbi[dot]co[dot]in
Nodal Officer Details :-Telephone Number 05222295363 Email Id agmpne[dot]lholuc[at]sbi[dot]co[dot]in
Here FAA attached his decision of appeal but did not attach communication of CPIO which is part of cryptic dealings of State Bank of India. They were not interested to tell others that they are providing illegible copy in the name of information to the appellant. 
  बर्बाद गुलिस्तां करने को बस एक ही उल्लू काफी है/ 

हर शाख पे उल्लू बैठें हैं अंजाम ऐ गुलिस्तां क्या होगा।

 ‘बर्बाद ऐ गुलशन कि खातिर बस एक ही उल्लू काफी था/ 

हर शाख पर उल्लू बैठा है अंजाम ऐ गुलशन क्या होगा।’

This is a humble request of your applicant to you, Hon’ble Sir, how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray for you, Hon’ble Sir.

Date-06/07/2022                                                  Yours sincerely


                                                      Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911,

Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar

 Pradesh, Pin code-231001.

3 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. The appellant submitted appeal on 01 June 2022 RTI Appeal Registration number SBILW/A/E/22/00146 which was disposed by respondent 2 i.e. FAA ON 30 June 2022 by providing an illegible copy of communication dated 24 June 2022 addressed to appellant as incomplete and misleading information which is still unavailable on the part CPIO ipso facto.
    Here the FAA has failed to ensure compliance of providing information through CPIO.
    Here wilful denial of information by CPIO invites action under section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005.

    ReplyDelete
  2. राज्य सूचना आयोग उत्तर प्रदेश यदि वास्तव में अपने कर्तव्यों के प्रति ईमानदार होता तो आज प्रदेश में बहुत कुछ हद तक भ्रष्टाचार नियंत्रित होता किंतु इनको क्या कहें आज तक ए लो किसी से भी अपने द्वारा लगाई गई शास्ति का वसूली तक नहीं कर पाते क्योंकि गवर्नमेंट इनके मार्ग में बहुत बड़ा बाधक है या दूसरे शब्दों में इनका खुद का भ्रष्टाचार इनके मार्ग में बहुत बड़ा बाधक है क्योंकि यह जब वसूल नहीं पाते तो संघर्ष भी तो नहीं करते

    ReplyDelete
  3. More than 50% cases submitted before the Uttar Pradesh state information commission are blockd by the staff of the registry of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission through arbitrary rules. Instead of entertaining the appeals submitted by the innocent and gullible people these appeals are rejected on the flimsy grounds by the staff of the registry who are itself stumbling block in seeking information from the public authorities and if the commission passes order after hearing a case to recover penalties imposed by them then that penalty is never recovered by the state government.

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post