RTI Dt.03.04.2010 to Social Justice Secretariat- MAHARASHTRA

MOST URGENT & IMMEDIATE – BY FAX

TO (022)22836688

 

R E M I N D E R

 

                                                                  Date: 25.05.2010

To:     Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya

          Desk Officer & Public Information Officer

          Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,

          Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

 

Sub: My Application dt.03.04.2010 submitted RTI Act 2005.

 

Ref: Your letter No.Asthapana-2010/Pr.Kr.122/Astha-1

       dated 30/04/2010.

                                          _________

 

            I am in receipt of your letter dated 30 April 2010 which is received on 08.05.2010 wherein you have informed me that you will take another month for supply of requisite information.

 

            As per constitutional provision in RTI Act 2005 I have to submit my appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of your reply.  Since your letter is received on 08.05.2010 and I have to submit my appeal to Shri G. K. Wagh, Deputy Secretary and Appellate Authority of your office on or before 07.06.2010.  Therefore, I consider your request for extending you one month period which will be completed on 01.06.2010 and I will submit my appeal after 02.06.2010 in case you failed to supply the requisite information till than too.

 

Yours’

         

 

 

(Nilesh Wankhede)

 

Copy for information to:

 

Shri G. K. wagh

Deputy secretary and Appellate Authority

Social Justice Department,

Secretariat of Maharashtra State,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF RTI ACT 2005

 

                                                    Date: 05.06.2010

 

From:

Nilesh Wankhede

District President,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Democratic Rights Forum,

“Ambedkar Sewa Sadan”,

Tilak Ward, Post-WARORA,

Distt. Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

PIN-442907.                                           

 

To,

Shri G. K. Wagh,

Deputy Secretary and First Appellate Authority

Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,

Secretariat of Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 400 032.            

 

__________

 

 

Particulars of the Public Information Officer	:	Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya
Date of receipt of the order appealed against	:	08.05.2010
Last date of filing the appeal	:	07.06.2010
The grounds for appeal	:	All the grounds are already detailed in RTI Act2005 in so easy language but it is very unfortunate that the public servants are not obeying the same. However, the facts of this matter are appended below;

 

 

1.            I have submitted an Application dated 03.04.2010 under RTI Act 2005 for some information of public interest.  A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-I at pages 1 to 2 along with its enclosures placed as ANNEXURE-II at pages 3 to 5.   

 

2.             In response to my Application under subject, I have received a reply on 08.05.2010 from Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya, Public Information Officer & Desk Officer sent vide letter No. Asthapana-2010/Pr.Kr.122/Astha-1 dated 30 April 2010.  A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-III at page-6  wherein she has stated that she is in need of more time of another month to provide the requisite information.

 

3.             In regard to the context laid down by Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya/PIO, I have sent a reply to her vide my letter dated 25.05.2010 sent by FAX and a copy of the same was also be sent to you for information.  A confirmation was also sent by post which was posted through Mantralaya Post Office on same day i.e. 25.05.2010 under UPC.  In my said letter I have shown my consent to give her extra time of one month as requested by Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya, PIO and I have brought into her notice that the period of a total 2 months are being completed and I have to submit my appeal on or before 07.06.2010.  However, till date no information is received from her.

 

                   It is pertinent to bring up the attitude of Mrs. Ujjwala P. vaidya, PIO of your department that she never provides requisite information under one pretext or the other.  My application dated 16.10.2010 is still unanswered for which I had to make another application dated 02.03.2010 and the same was also mishandled by her for which I have been forced to submit appeal.  The most unfortunate is that my that appeal dated 09.04.2010 is pending with you even after a period of 02 months is lapsed.  

 

4. CONDUCT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

 

               While observing the facts come out from the details in Para 3 above, it is proved that whatever action done by Mrs. Ujjwala P. vaidya, Public Information Officer and Desk officer is done with intention and it shows her intentional ignorance of duties assigned to him for public service. 

 

              It can be presumed that the PIO is disobeying the provision of RTI Act since she did not quote any section of the RTI Act 2005 and only tried to deny the access of the information under one pretext or the other and restricted the democratic rights of a citizen. 

 

               She has forgotten that he is a servant of citizens and acted like a dictator which is a RASHTRADROH in our democratic nation.  She is holding a sensitive post of Desk Officer in public service and posted in Secretariat of the state and so it cannot be considered that she is not literate to the level to understand constitutional provisions.  Therefore, her misconduct is unforgivable. 

 

               While observing her attitude toward public service it can be presumed the how he will be doing injustice to the assignments given to him for public service.  Such public servants are the root cause of injustice to public as they misuse the powers of the post for doing corruption as well as to get shelter and gives burden to the nation and so they should be immediately not only thrown out of public service but necessary legal action should also be initiated against for their imprisonment for RASHTRADROH for misusing the powers of the post for disobeying their constitution duty which is against the nation and all the public money paid to them while in public service should also be recovered with fine and they should be declared “DISQUALIFIED” for public service. 

 

 

Particulars of information	:
(i)  Nature and subject matter of the information required	:	Information in the form of Diskettes and zerox copies regarding establishment matters.
(ii) Name of the Officer or Department to which the information relates	:	Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya, Public Information Officer and Desk officer, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Secretariat of Mantralaya of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

 

 

ORDER SOUGHT BY THIS APPEAL

 

1.     In view of the facts as brought out above, I demand that the requisite information sought by me vide my application dated 02.03.2010 should be given to me as early as possible at free of cost as per provision of (6) of section 7 of RTI Act 2005.

 

2.    Maximum possible penalty should be imposed in accordance with section 20 of RTI Act 2005 against Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya, PIO & Desk officer following with disciplinary action to remove her out of public service immediately since she is very harmful while in public service for a democratic nation keeping in view the facts brought out above. 

 

Subsequently, further legal action should also be initiated against her framing the charges of RASHTRADROH and all public money paid to her while in public service should be recovered from her with fine and she should be declared “DISQUALIFIED” for public service. 

 

It should also be taken into consideration that why her educational and other qualification should not be re-examined since her integrity is fallen under doubt?  Her all the qualification certificates produced by her while getting appointment in public service should also be seized till the outcome of her trial.

 

            The court fees stamp valued Rs. 20/- affixed toward fees for appeal under RTI Act 2005.  Please note that I cannot come personally now so the information should be given to me by SPEED POST to avoid delay in communication.  It is also to note that I have submitted all the grounds needed at this stage and the same may be taken into account while deciding this appeal since I cannot attend and such personal hearing and also the First Appellate Authority is not empowered to have any kind of hearing in which the presence of Appellant is mandatory.

 

 

DA: Annexures I to VI (Pages       )

                                                    Signature of Appellant

 

 

Copy to:

 

Mrs. Ujjwala P. Vaidya

Desk Officer and PIO

Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032

The entire issue in my both the applications dated 02.03.2010 and 03.04.2010.

 

There are approximately 100 crores rupees being over paid to public servants of secretariat of Maharashtra.  I have collected the data of their presence and other documentary evidence.

 

Another side more than 15ooo formers committed suicide since the public servants do not work for implementation of Government schemes and all the money is going in their pocket via corruption.

 

RTI Act 2005 says that;

 

No court shall entertain any suit, application ot other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

 

Section 23 in Chapter IV provides for bar of jurisdiction of Courts.  However, note that the bar relates to ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts.  Extra-ordinary Writ jurisdiction, however, is not ruled out.

 

Lower Courts are barred from entertaining suits or applications against any orderr made under this Act.  However, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Hogh Courts under Articles 32 and 225 of the Constitution remains unaffected.

 

Here in the Maharashtra State Information Commission one Shri Suresh Vinayak Joshi, ex. Metropolitan Commissioner had resigned from Government service and took over as State Chief Information Commossioner from back door by using his political connections and since he himself is a bureaucrat and so he is doing nothing in the appeals submitted against public servants since they are his colleagues.

 

Therefore, I offer the comments and advise from the Lawyers AND OTHER Law experts, who understand their social concerns, that;

CAN I BRING UP THIS ISSUE IN HIGH COURT OR IN SUPREME COURT SINCE IT IS A MATTER WHERE THE ADMINISTRATORS ARE DENYING MY DEMOCRATIC RIGHT ???

I appreciate the efforts put by Mr. Ram and Mr. Nilesh to put the administration on stream line with the intention of administrative accountability and I think that could be achieved only by recovery of public money wasted by our bureacrates. In my opinion so far the writ part is concerned, I think that usually the HC do not entertain such writs which involve evidence tobe recorded and which could be decided on evidence, however,you can file the writ for mandate to the govt. and CAG for enquiring into this aspect,take action and report to the HC,Further I am also of the opinion that the Govt.should come forward to enact the law specially for public servants to create apprehension in their minds that negligence/connivance in duty would result into criminal offence punishable severely. I also think that it is offence against national integrity and public servant including MLAs and MPs should also be covered

i think a pil is justified on the matter.

please explain in pil how "approximately 100 crores rupees being over paid to public servants of secretariat of Maharashtra".

it is a conspiracy against the state, the public money / property.

that is the reason why they not replying?

but one thing i could not understand that how the benifitted people able to grab this huge amount.

your alertness may  save the public money.