Open letter to governor of UP to sack UP CIC Ranjit Singh Pankaj
Sharma Urvashi, 29-Nov-2010 11:54:42 AM
Keywords: Minors | rti | up | cic | pankaj | yaishwaryaj |
To: Sri Banwari Lal Joshi
The Governor of Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Government , Lucknow, IUndia , Pin Code – 226001
From: Social Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
Date: 28th November , 2010
Re. :Concerns for citizens about fair play at State Information
Commission of Uttar Pradesh under the headship of an incompetent ,
act-ignorant , an infirm minded and corrupt State Chief Information
Commissioner Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj AND demand to stop him from
attending the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner at
once & subsequently remove him from the chair to meet the ends of the
justice in compliance to the section 17 of the Right to Information
Act 2005
On behalf of Social Group " YAISHWARYAJ " , the undersigned has
drafted this memorandum to communicate the collective concerns of our
group to you . Sir you are responsible for compliance of the Right to
Information Act 2005 in letter & spirit and also to ensure the
realization of the civil rights of all the citizens of the Uttar
Pradesh.
Our group is alarmed and distressed to see that the present Uttar
Pradesh chief information commissioner, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has
denied information to Nine Year old Lucknow based girl child Miss
Aishwarya Sharma on the pretext that she is a minor .
Miss Aishwarya Sharma sent a letter on 26-10-09 to the UP CM by
speedpost .The PIO of CM office denied receipt of the said letter dtd.
26-10-09 .Miss Aishwarya used RTI act and sent letter of section 6 on
15-03-10 to the PIO of CM office to search her lost letter . The PIO
of CM office sent a letter on 08-04-10 .Aggrieved by the above order
of PIO dtd.08-04-10 , Miss Aishwarya sent First Appeal on 26-04-10
U/S 19(1) of RTI act to the Appellate Authority of CM office . The
same was returned in original to Miss Aishwarya , by Sri Navneet
Sehgal the Appellate Authority of CM office. Aggrieved by the order
of the Appellate Authority of CM office , Miss Aishwarya moved UPSIC
where case no. S1-1460/C-10 got registered and heard on 06-09-10 by UP
CIC Sri R. S. Pankaj. UPSIC dispatched order on 26-10-10 and asked
Miss Aishwarya to be present before UPSIC on 23-11-10 but the letter
has visible post office date stamp of 25-11-10 , making it crystal
clear that UPSIC had foul play in mind and wanted to ensure that Miss
Aishwarya should not be present in hearing to press her point.
A perusal of order of UP CIC shows it grossly violates the RTI act
2005. For reference –
1) section 3 of RTI act which says "Subject to the provisions of this
Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."
Miss Aishwarya is very much a citizen of INDIA.
2) section 6(1) of RTI act which says "A person, who desires to obtain
any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or
through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official
language of the area in which the application is being made,
accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— ( a) the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, of the concerned public authority;(b) the Central
Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public
Information Officer, as the case may be,specifying the particulars of
the information sought by him or her:Provided that where such request
cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all
reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to
reduce the same in writing."
Miss Aishwarya is a person who sought info under RTI act 2005.
3) section 6 ( 2 ) of RTI act which reads "An applicant making request
for information shall not be required to give any reason for
requesting the information or any other personal details except those
that may be necessary for contacting him."
It's a folly that UP CIC is asking about age of Miss Aishwarya .
4) section 22 which reads "The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than this Act. " means the RTI act 2005 shall have overriding effect
over any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The UP CIC had
denied info to minor Aishwarya on the pretext of " INDIAN MAJORITY ACT
" & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 " . As is clear from
section 22 of RTI act , RTI act shall have overriding effect over "
INDIAN MAJORITY ACT " & " CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – procedure order 32 "
hence these pleadings of UP CIC are not tenable in the eye of law.
On one hand , UN Convention on the Rights of the children advocates
of giving ample of rights to the children including forming
associations to fight for their rights , on the other hand Such
unreasonable order which is contradictory to UNCRC is being passed by
UP CIC. This is ridiculous as India is a signatory at UN Convention on
the Rights of the children .
The RTI Act, emanates from Art. 19 (1 ) (a) of The Constitution & it
is firmly rooted under Fundamental Right enshrined and
guaranteed to every Citizen of India read with Art. 5 , thus
regardless of age any citizen can use RTI act on his/her own .
Even Earlier to his appointment as SCIC , the Charges of corruption
were leveled against the Chief Information Commissioner Sri Ranjit
Singh Pankaj while he was the district magistrate of Gorakhpur in
2008. The charges were corroborated by the divisional commissioner, P
K Mohanty, who conducted an inquiry into the selection process of
3,448 safai karamcharis. The probe report, acting on which the
government cancelled all the appointments, held Pankaj responsible for
violating norms and handpicking men of his choice who later committed
irregularities, including accepting bribes.
Our group is deeply worried and anguished for the info-seekers as to
how they can expect fair play at the State Information Commission of
Uttar Pradesh under the headship of an act-ignorant , infirm-minded ,
incompetent and corrupt State Chief Information Commissioner Sri
Ranjit Singh Pankaj . In these circumstances Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj
shall not be able to safeguard the citizens' right to information in
the State.
Section 17 of the Right To Information act 2005 reads as given
herein under - " (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3),
the State Chief information Commissioner or a State Information
Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the
Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the
Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on
inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a
State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such
ground be removed.
( 2 ) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary
prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State
Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in
respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of
thereport of the Supreme Court on such reference.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the
Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief
Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the
case may be,—
(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the
Governor, involves moral turpitude; or
(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside
the duties of his office; or
(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by
reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to
affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information
Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.
(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State
Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any
contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the
State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any
benefit or emoluments arising there from otherwise than as a member
and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he
shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of
misbehavior. "
Keeping abovementioned facts under consideration the Governor / the
State should have taken suo-motto cognizance of the illegalities and
should have stopped Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj from attending the office
of the State Chief Information Commissioner at once to meet the ends
of the justice in compliance to the section 17( 3 ) of the Right to
Information Act 2005 .
Since the Governor / the State has failed to take the necessary
punitive action against the State Chief Information Commissioner as
per section 17 of the Right to Information Act 2005 , Our group is
compelled to endorse the concerns as stated above , recommend and
demand immediate removal of the State Chief Information Commissioner
from office as Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has shown his infirmity of mind
by denying the information to Miss Aishwarya Sharma and has been
convicted of offences which, in the eye of Law involve moral turpitude
and also that immediate non-removal of Sri Pankaj is a constitutional
lapse being violative of the RTI Act 2005 .
Encl. : Order of UPSIC ( 2 Pages )
Yours truly ,
Urvashi Sharma
Founder & Convener
Group " YAISHWARYAJ "
F-2376 , Rajajipuram , Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh , India , Pin Code – 226017
e-mail yaishwaryaj@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment