![]() | Beerbhadra Singh <myogimpsingh@gmail.com> |
Why D.M. Mirzapur did not take any action on the communication dated 01/12/2020 of Tejaskar Pandey, PIO, UPSIC? 1 message |
Beerbhadra Singh <myogimpsingh@gmail.com> | Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:50 PM | ||||||||
To: satyendra.13939@gov.in, dmmir@up.nic.in, commmir@nic.in, sec.sic@up.nic.in, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>, urgent-action <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup@up.nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, uphrclko@yahoo.co.in, lokayukta@hotmail.com | |||||||||
|
श्री मान जी शासक महत्वपूर्ण नहीं है संबिधान महत्वपूर्ण है
ReplyDeleteश्री मान जी इस समय तो शासक हर किसी को ठोक देना चाहता है जो सही बोलता है तो फिर ठोकना शुरू कर दीजिए
श्री मान जी जिलाधिकारी मिर्ज़ापुर के विरुद्ध नियमानुसार कार्यवाही किया जाय क्यों की उन्होंने नियम विरुद्ध कार्य करके कानून तोड़ने वालो का संरक्षण किया है और एक संबैधानिक संस्था के आदेश को दरकिनार किया है जो आराजकता की श्रेणी में आता है
जब जनसूचना अधिकारी तेजस्कर पांडेय राज्य सूचना आयोग भी सूचना देने का निवेदन किया जिलाधिकारी से फिर भी उन्होंने नहीं दिया अर्थात पचासो आवेदनों के पश्चात् भी जिलाधिकारी ने शास्ति की वसूली नहीं की
In 2018 ering public information officers in Mirzapur district were penalized with the pecuniary penalty of Rs.25000 per public information officer by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission in the matter of information seeker but recovery still not made and order not complied by the government. Order of Uttar Pradesh state information commission is still not complied by the district magistrate Mirzapur which is a mockery of the law of land but who will take action against the district magistrate who acted against the spirit of the constitution of this country to please the political masters and corrupt people in the system.
ReplyDeleteRight to Information act 2005 was brought up by the government of India to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authority and section 20 of The Right to Information act 2005 enables the central information commission and state Information Commission to impose pecuniary penalties on the wrongdoer Public Information Officer but both the central and state government has hatched the conspiracy to dilute the provisions or you can say that indirectly they made the provisions of section 20 of the right Information act 2005 impotent by not complying the recovery orders of the information commissions.
ReplyDeleteThis is characteristics of a good governance that its function must be transparent and accountable but where is transparency and accountability if the right to information act 2005 has been thrown into the dustbin by the current incumbent of this country and state. Section 20 of right to information act 2005 is the backbone of the act but if no pecuniary penalty imposed by the the state information commission or central information commission will be imposed on the wrongdoer public information officers then how the provisions of the right to information act 2005 will be enforced by the concerned constitutional functionaries and there will be no fear of the penal action in the wrongdoer public staffs who are making a mockery of the provisions of the right to information act 2005.
ReplyDelete