UPSIC moderated its denial of information, now saying that research officer did not reject appeal but an step to remove errors


अपीलीय प्राधिकारी, उ.प्र. सूचना आयोग
आर०टी०आई० भवन, टी0सी0जी0-7/7ए, विभूति खण्ड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ-226010
पत्रांकः 19 / रा.सू.आ./ सचिव. कैम्प./2024-25
अपील संख्याः 37/2024
बनाम
दिनांकः 10 अप्रैल, 2024
आदेश तिथिः 09.04.2024
प्रथम अपीलकर्ता श्री योगी एम.पी. सिंह, पता मोहल्ला सुरेखापुरम, जनबलपुर रोड, संगमोहाल, पोस्ट आफिस- 231001
प्रथम अपील विनिश्चय
प्रतिवादी जनसूचना अधिकारी, उ.प्र. सूचना आयोग, लखनऊ।
यह प्रथम अपील आनलाइन श्री योगी एम.पी. सिंह द्वारा दिनांकः 10.03.2024 को आनलाइन आयोग में प्रस्तुत की गई है, जिसका रजिस्ट्रेशन संख्या UPICM/A/2024/60040 है। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा अपील में यह अभिकथन किया गया है कि जनसूचना अधिकारी द्वारा सूचना उपलब्ध कराने से मना किया गया है।
मेरे द्वारा जनसूचना कार्यालय की सम्बन्धित पत्रावली पर रक्षित अभिलेखों तथा अपीलकर्ता द्वारा अपील मेमो में उल्लिखित समस्त तथ्यों का सम्यक अनुशीलन किया गया। अ‌योहस्ताक्षरी आवेदन के क्रम में दिये गये प्रत्युत्तर से सहमत नहीं होने की दशा में जनसूचना अधिकारी को निर्देशित किया गया था कि वांछित सूचना आवेदन धारा-6 (1) दिनांकः 09.02.2024 की संशोधित सूचना तैयार करके प्रस्तुत करना सुनिश्चित करें। तत्क्रम में जनसूचना अधिकारी द्वारा संशोधित सूचना पत्रांकः 23, दिनांकः 08.04.2024 के माध्यम से प्रस्तुत की गयी है।
मेरे द्वारा उक्त आवेदन दिनांकः 09.02.2024 तथा जनसूचनाधिकारी द्वारा उपलब्ध कराई गई संशोधित सूचना दिनांकः 08.04.2024 का अनुशीलन किया गया।
आवेदक/अपीलकर्ता द्वारा वांछित सूचना तथा जनसूचनाधिकारी द्वारा उपलब्ध कराई गई संशोधित सूचना का विवरण निम्नवत् हैः-
मांगी गयी सूचना
According to subsection I d of section 4 of the right to information act 2005, it shall be obligatory duty of every public authority to provide the reasons for its decisions to parties concerned. Most respected Supreme Court of India quoted in its various judgments that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system and it is not only applicable in the judiciary but for better administration it must be applicable in the administrative system. It is quite obvious that Uttar Pradesh state information commission is a quasi- judicial body. From the messages sent by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission It is quite obvious that the following second appeals submitted by the appellant were arbitrarily rejected by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
1-Registration number A-20240100181 of the diary number submitted by you to the U.P. Information Commission has been rejected by the Research Officer and forwarded to Registrar for verification for signature. Public information officer must provide the reason for rejecting the second appeal by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
संशोधित सूचना
उक्त क्रम में अवगत कराना है कि संदर्भित पंजीकरण संख्या-A-20240100181 द्वितीय अपील को शोध अधिकारी द्वारा अस्वीकृत नहीं किया गया है, अपितु शोध अधिकारी द्वारा उ०प्र० सूचना का अधिकार नियमावली-2015 के नियम-7(3) की विहित व्यवस्थानुसार उक्त अपील मेमो में पायी गयी कमियों को इंगित कर दूर करते हुए, कमियों को दूरुस्त करने हेतु अपीलार्थी को वापस करने की रजिस्ट्रार महोदय से अनुमोदन हेतु संस्तुति की गयी थी। तद्नुसार रजिस्ट्रार महोदय के अनुमोदनोपरांत उक्त अपील
आवेदन त्रुटि निवारण हेतु वापस की गयी है। यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम-2005 के प्राविधानानुसार द्वितीय अपील स्वीकृत अथवा अस्वीकृत करने का क्षेत्राधिकार मा० आयोग में निहित है।

2-Registration number A-20240200085 of the diary number submitted by you to the U.P. Information Commission has been rejected by the Research Officer and forwarded to Registrar for verification for signature. Public information officer must provide the reason for rejecting the second appeal by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
बिन्दु संख्या 01 के अनुसार।
3-Registration number A-20240200151 of the diary number submitted by you to the U.P. Information Commission has been rejected by the Research Officer and forwarded to the Registrar for verification for signature. Public information officer must provide the reason for rejecting the second appeal by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
बिन्दु संख्या 01 के अनुसार।
4-Registration number A-20240200173 of the diary number submitted by you to the U.P. Information Commission has been rejected by the Research Officer and forwarded to the Registrar for verification for signature. Public information officer must provide the reason for rejecting the second appeal by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
बिन्दु संख्या 01 के अनुसार।
5-Registration number A-20240200174 of the diary number submitted by you to the U.P. Information Commission has been rejected by the Research Officer and forwarded to the Registrar for verification for signature. Public information officer must provide the reason for rejecting the second appeal by the research officer of the Uttar Pradesh state information commission.
बिन्दु संख्या 01 के अनुसार।

उपर्युक्तानुसार, अपीलकर्ता/आवेदक द्वारा वांछित सूचना तथा जनसूचनाधिकारी द्वारा उपलब्ध कराई गई संशोधित सूचना के सम्यक अवलोकन, अनुशीलन एवं परीक्षण के उपरान्त मेरा अभिमत है कि जनसूचनाधिकारी द्वारा आवेदक को उचित सही एवं पूर्ण सूचना दी गई है। अग्रेत्तर कार्यवाही की आवश्यकता नहीं है। तदनुसार प्रस्तुत अपील निस्तारित की जाती है।
उक्त आदेश की प्रति उभयपक्ष को प्रेषित की जाए। अपीलकर्ता को आदेश के साथ संशोधित सूचना की प्रति भी संलग्न करके प्रेषित की जाये। यदि अपीलकर्ता इस विनिश्चय से सन्तुष्ट नहीं है तो इस आदेश की प्राप्ति के 90 दिन के अन्दर सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम-2005 की धारा-19 (3) के अन्तर्गत उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयोग, लखनऊ के समक्ष ‌द्वितीय अपील संस्थित कर सकते
प्रतिलिपि- निम्नलिखित को सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित।
1. श्री मुमताज़ अहमद, जनसूचना अधिकारी/प्रशासनिक अधिकारी, उत्तर प्रदेश सूचना आयोग, लखनऊ। 2. श्री योगी एम.पी. सिंह, पता मोहल्ला सुरेखापुरम, जनबलपुर रोड, संगमोहाल, पोस्ट आफिस- 231001
(जुमदीश प्रसाद)
प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी/सचिव
(जगदीश प्रसाद)
प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी/सचिव

Registration Number UPICM/A/2024/60040

Name Yogi M P Singh

Date of Filing 10/03/2024

Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 10/04/2024

Reply :- order annexed.

View Document

  Nodal Officer Details  

Name TEJASKAR PANDEY

Telephone Number 05222724941

Email-ID

Online RTI Appeal Form Details

Public Authority Details :-  

* Public Authority Uttar Pradesh Information Commission  

Personal Details:-

* Name Yogi M P Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office

Districts Mirzapur

Pincode 231001

State Uttar Pradesh

Educational Status Literate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-7379105911

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

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

First Appeal Details u/s 19(1) :-

Registration Number UPICM/A/2024/60040

Date of Filing 10/03/2024

Concerned Appellate Authority JAGDISH PRASAD

Phone No 05222724941

Email Id sec.sic@gov.in

* Ground For Appeal Refused access to Information Requested

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

* Prayer or Relief Sought Large scale arbitrary rejection of the second appeal by the research officer indicating organised crime of Uttar Pradesh state information commission in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh state information commission has no reasonable solution against the arbitrary action of the research officer which implies the rule of anarchy in the working of the commission. It seems that Uttar Pradesh state information commission is ruled by corruption quite obvious from its cryptic working style and arbitrary actions. Here this question arises: who will take action against corruption if the system is ruled by corruption? This is the Root Cause in the last 10 years no action taken by the government against corruption. Tyranny and arbitrariness always open the gate of corruption and there is no transparency and accountability in the working of the transparency ombudsman itself.

According to subsection (2 B iv) of section 4 of the UTTAR PRADESH RIGHT TO INFORMATION RULES, 2015 categorically states that  Any request for obtaining information under the Act should fulfil the following conditions: The information sought should not involve answers to the question ‘why’, thus asking for reasons why a certain act was done or not done; or

It is quite obvious that the concerned public information officer denied the information by taking the recourse of 4th point of subsection 2 b of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh right to information rules 2015. According to this provision no queries can be put up before the public information officer and such information is exempted from disclosure under the rule framed by the government of Uttar Pradesh.

Here prayer has been made by the appellant in the form of the second appeals before the Uttar Pradesh state information commission. The acceptance of the appeal or rejection of the appeal is the decision taken by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission through concerned staff so if the rejection has been made by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission during the processing of the appeal then right to reason allows the applicant to seek the reason of the rejection from the concerned public authority. 

Admission and rejection both are integral part of a decision and admission is a positive aspect of a decision a rejection is a negative aspect of decision. Arbitrary decisions without reasons always open the gate of corruption so in the interest of Justice such practices can never be promoted in the working of the transparency ombudsman whose job is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities by being instrumental in providing information to the information seekers.

The right to give reasons or the right to a speaking order is one of the most important rights individuals have when they come up against the state in various administrative procedures. Due to this reason, this right has also been considered as the third principle of natural justice.

To prevent the negation of their decisions due to arbitrariness, the administrative authorities have to give convincing reasons for their actions. This prevents the functionaries from acting unfairly, unjustly and arbitrarily.

When administrative authorities give reasons for their actions, they are on the alert and have to carefully formulate objective reasons for their actions, which minimises the chances of abuse of powers by such authorities. Absence of such requirements, results in a wide scope for abuse of their discretion and creates a feeling of injustice and suspicion towards the state. Hence, this process of reasoning greatly limits the discretionary powers in the hands of government officials and furthers social welfare.  

Subsection 1 d of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005 states that It shall be obligatory duty of public authorities to provide reasons of its decisions.

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB)) Supporting document not provided

RTI Application Details u/s 6(1) :-

Registration Number UPICM/R/2024/60119

Date of Filing 29/02/2024

PIO of Public Authority approached MUMTAZ AHMAD

Designation ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Phone No 05222724745

Email Id

PIO Order/Decision Number Details not provided

* PIO Order/Decision Date

Yogi

An anti-corruption crusader. Motive to build a strong society based on the principle of universal brotherhood. Human rights defender and RTI activist. Working for the betterment of societies and as an anti-corruption crusader for more than 25 years. Our sole motive is to raise the voices of weaker and downtrodden sections of the society and safeguard their human rights. Our motive is to promote the religion of universal brotherhood among the various castes communities of different religions. Man is great by his deeds and character.

Post a Comment

Your view points inspire us

Previous Post Next Post