Fwd: Even after four successive hearings in U.P.S.I.C. in the second appeal, B.S.A. Mirzapur did not provide sought information concerned with midday meal to Yogi M. P. Singh.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:44:04 +0530
Subject: Re: Even after four successive hearings in U.P.S.I.C. in the
second appeal, B.S.A. Mirzapur did not provide sought information
concerned with midday meal to Yogi M. P. Singh.
To: secypg@nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in, s.mishra@nic.in,
acph-rb@rb.nic.in, cmup@up.nic.in, pmosb@pmo.nic.in

Hon'ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to
draw kind attention of the Hon'ble Sir towards following points as
follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that under
point 3 your applicant sought information as follows. " This is humble
request of your applicant to made available access to information
that any cook , cook instructor , attendants have been appointed if
appointed then made available who appointed them and what emoluments
are provided to them? Whether emoluments are provided to them through
cheque or account payee cheque or bearer cheque or cash.
2--It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that B.S.A.
Mirzapur made available information that Gram Pradhan did not make
available information that what honorarium was paid? & whether it was
payed through cheque or cash. Therefore this information is not
available. 3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that B.S.A. did
not reply information sought under point 5. -It is submitted before
the Hon'ble Sir that when financial requirement under midday meal
scheme is fulfilled by Basic education department then how
transparency in scheme is possible if B.S.A. itself can not know what
payment was made to cooks. 6-It is submitted before the Hon'ble
Sir that information made available by B.S.A. Mirzapur is still
incomplete. 7-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir
that if I am taking the perusal of part information made available by
B.S.A. , then ipsofacto obvious that only 1.4kg per student rice was
provided by state government in one month in midday meal scheme. If 4
sundays may be deleted, then 25 days school remains open. This shows
that 56 gram rice is provided by state government to each student in
order to stop mal-nutrition in children. What a balance diet is
provided by state government in the name of midday meal scheme.
This is humble request of your applicant to you
Hon'ble Sir to direct appropriate authority to made available rest of
information. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon'ble Sir.
Yours Sincerely. Yogi M. P. Singh

On 2/5/12, Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:32:29 +0530
> Subject: Even after four successive hearings in U.P.S.I.C. in the
> second appeal, B.S.A. Mirzapur did not provide sought information
> concerned with midday meal to Yogi M. P. Singh.
> To: sec.sic@up.nic.in
>
> Hon'ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to
> draw kind attention of Hon'ble Sir towards following points as
> follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon'ble
> Sir that your applicant sought point-wise information from B.S.A.
> Mirzapur through its RTI communique dated 26.12.2010. under subsection
> 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005. 2-It is
> submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that four successive hearing took
> place before the U.P.S.I.C. in the second appeal filed by your
> applicant but unfortunately B.S.A. Mirzapur only made available
> information sought under points 1 & 2 during the second time hearing
> and later his representative did not consider it fit to made
> available rest of informations except made excuses on filmsy ground.
> 3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that when the first
> time hearing was taking place in the second appeal then neither B.S.A.
> nor his subordinates considerd it appropriate to participate in the
> proceedings of commission. 4-It is submitted before the
> Hon'ble Sir that earlier in a different matter penalty was imposed by
> the U.P.S.I.C. on B.S.A. Mirzapur but district administration did not
> show any eagerness to recover the imposed penalty from the salary of
> B.S.A. Mirzapur. 5-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir
> that non recovery of penalty is the root cause of lackadaisical
> approach adopted by the PIOs in providing information.
> 6-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that next date of hearing of
> second appeal filed by your applicant is 11-April-2012.
> 7-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that your
> applicant filed second appeal with prayer to direct B.S.A. Mirzapur to
> made available desired information sought through letter dated
> 26.12.2010 under subsection 1 of section 6 of R.T.I. Act 2005. Which
> has not been made available yet. Your applicant also requested to
> award punishment to B.S.A. Mirzapur who is guilty of violating the
> subsection 1 of section 7 of R.T.I. Act 2005 as well as non
> compliance of directive passed by the first appellate authority which
> is gross misconduct on the part of B.S.A. Mirzapur causing irreparable
> damage to the government system. This is humble
> request of your applicant to you Hon'ble Sir to pass an appropriate
> order as required by law. For this your applicant shall ever pray you
> Hon'ble Sir. Yours Sincerely. Yogi M. P. Singh
> ,Moh-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Dist-Mirzapur (U.P.) India.
>