Sunday, July 6, 2014

[rti4empowerment] सूचना आयुक्त - आरटीआई का संरक्षक या सुपारी-किलर :: उप्र में सूचना कानून का रक्षक ही बना भक्षक : मामले की न्यायिक जांच की मांग l

 

प्रिय मित्र,
अखिलेशराज में उत्तर प्रदेश में सरकारी तंत्र द्वारा आम जन को भयाक्रांत कर  मनमानी करने  की शुरुआत तो अखिलेश के सत्ता सँभालने के कुछ दिनों बाद ही हो गयी थी पर अब तो ये मामले आम हो गए हैं l लोक सभा चुनावों में मिली करारी शिकस्त के बाद राजनैतिक आकाओं की  डाँट - डपट  से बदहबास तंत्र अपना गुस्सा प्रदेश की निरीह जनता पर उतार रहा है l
 
 
इसी कड़ी में एक ऐसा अनोखा मामला सामने आया है जिसमे उत्तर प्रदेश के पूर्व मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त रंजीत सिंह पंकज ने बीते 6 जून को अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र से परे जाकर सूचना मांगने बाले को ही कारावास तक की सजा सुना दी है l राज्य सूचना आयोग कानूनन न्यायालय नहीं है पर पंकज ने  बिना अधिकार के ही  सीआरपीसी की धारा 345 के साथ पठित आईपीसी  की धारा 228 के तहत न्यायालय की  अवमानना  की कार्यवाही में यह तुगलकी आदेश जारी किया है l
 
 
सीआरपीसी की धारा 345 में  केवल किसी सिविल, दांडिक अथवा राजस्व कोर्ट द्वारा ही कार्यवाही की जा सकती है जबकि सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने भारत सरकार बनाम नमित शर्मा की रिव्यू याचिका [ सिविल ] संख्या 2309 / 2012 के आदेश दिनांक 03 सितम्बर  2013 के द्वारा   स्पष्ट कर दिया है.कि सूचना आयोग न्यायालय  नहीं  है इस लिए सीआरपीसी की धारा 345 इस मामले में  लागू ही नहीं होती है l
 
 
आईपीसी की धारा 228  में  केवल न्यायिक कार्य करने बाले लोकसेवक के मामले में ही  कार्यवाही की जा सकती है जबकि सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने भारत सरकार बनाम नमित शर्मा की रिव्यू याचिका [ सिविल ] संख्या 2309 / 2012 के आदेश दिनांक 03 सितम्बर  2013 के द्वारा   स्पष्ट कर दिया है.कि सूचना आयुक्त न्यायिक कार्य नहीं करते हैं अपितु प्रशासनिक कार्य करते हैं  इस लिए आईपीसी की धारा 228 भी  इस मामले में  लागू ही नहीं होती है l
 
 
आयोग किसी भी प्रकार से धारा 345 सीआरपीसी तथा/अथवा धारा 228 आईपीसी के अंतर्गत कार्यवाही करने का अधिकारी नहीं है l
 
 
आरटीआई एक्ट में सूचना आयुक्त की अवधारणा आरटीआई एक्ट के  संरक्षक के रूप में की है पर मुझे यह कहने में कोई झिझक नहीं है कि यही सूचना आयुक्त  आज  भ्रष्टाचारियों से सुपारी लेकर आरटीआई एक्ट  के  किलर की भूमिका में सामने आये हैं और प्रदेश में आरटीआई एक्ट का गला घोंटकर आरटीआई एक्ट की मंशा की हत्या करने पर आमादा हैं l उत्तर प्रदेश में सूचना कानून के  रक्षक के ही सूचना कानून के  भक्षक बनने के इस  मामले में  मैंने  उत्तर प्रदेश के राज्यपाल और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश को पत्र  लिखकर न्यायिक जांच कराने की  मांग  की है l रंजीत सिंह पंकज हाल ही में सेवानिवृत हो चुके हैं अतः राज्यपाल द्वारा आरटीआई एक्ट की  धारा 17  में प्रदत्त अधिकारों के अनुसार पंकज को पदच्युत किये जाने की  आख्या मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय को अग्रिम कार्यवाही करने हेतु प्रेषित करने का कोई औचित्य नहीं होने के कारण ही मैंने न्यायिक जांच कराने की  मांग  की है l
 
 
उत्तर प्रदेश के राज्यपाल और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश को लिखे पत्र की प्रति इस पत्र के अंत मैं दी जा रही है जिसमे मैंने ये सभी बाते लिखी हैं l
 
 
पूर्व मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त रंजीत सिंह पंकज के तुगलकी आदेश की प्रति नीचे दिए वेबलिंक पर उपलब्ध है : http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2014/07/upsic-sentences-imprisonment-to-info.html
 
 
उत्तर प्रदेश के राज्यपाल और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश को लिखे पत्र की प्रति :

urvashi sharma

<rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com>
AttachmentFri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM
To: hgovup <hgovup@nic.in>, hgovup <hgovup@up.nic.in>, hgovup <hgovup@gov.in>
Cc: supremecourt@nic.in
To,
                                By E-mail
Dr. Aziz Qureshi
The Governor of Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh Government,Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh, India,Pin Code-226001
hgovup[at]gov[dot]in "hgovup" <hgovup@nic.in>, "hgovup"
<hgovup@up.nic.in>, "hgovup" <hgovup@gov.in>,


Sub.: Ex. Chief Information Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh acted
arbitrarily beyond set principals of jurisprudence by  sentencing
fine/imprisonment to info-seeker for his alleged act of contempt of
court : Request for a judicial probe into the matter

Sir,
This refers to order dated 06-06-2014, passed by Ex. Chief Information
Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj who acted
arbitrarily beyond set principals of jurisprudence and sentenced
fine/imprisonment to info-seeker for his alleged act of contempt of
court. Chief Information Commissioner passed the said order under
section 345 of CrPC read with section 228 of IPC.Scanned copies of
five pages of order of Chief Information Commissioner is attached with
this mail. Same can be downloaded from given web-link also:
http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2014/07/upsic-sentences-imprisonment-to-info.html

 In this case my submissions are as given below :

1)      Para 1 of order of State Chief Information Commissioner ( SCIC )
states background of case with details of base case related to seeking
the information by said info-seeker.

2)      Para 2 & 3 of order of State Chief Information Commissioner ( SCIC
) elucidate allegations of biased & unlawful practices prevailing in
Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission ( UPSIC ) made by said
info-seeker. In the said order SCIC has not clarified his position on
VERACITY/FALSEHOOD of allegations as imposed by said info-seeker which
makes actions of SCIS dubious and needs to be investigated in the
light of base case related to seeking the information by said
info-seeker and subsequent proceedings of the case.

3)      Para 4 of order of SCIC states that notice of Contempt of Court was
issued to said info-seeker U/S 345 of CrPC read with section 228 of
IPC.
Section 345 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
345. Procedure in certain cases of contempt.
(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178,
section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860 ), is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal
or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in
custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the
same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the
offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not
be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not
exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless
such fine be sooner paid.
(2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting
the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well
as the finding and sentence.
(3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860 ), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial
proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and
the nature of the interruption or insult.
Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code
228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in
judicial proceeding.—Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or
causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public
servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one thou¬sand rupees, or with
both. State Amendment Andhra Pradesh.—In Andhra Pradesh offence under
section 228 is cognizable. [Vide A.P.G.O. Ms. No. 732, dated 5th
December, 1991].

4)      Para 5 of order of SCIC states facts as given in reply of Info-seeker.
5)      Para 6 of order of SCIC makes it clear that SCIC was bent-upon to
penalize the info-seeker  and that's why the order was passed against
the law of natural justice as it was passed without providing
reasonable opportunity of defense to said info-seeker.

6)      Paras 7,8,9 & 10 of order of SCIC states Para 106 of order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in WP(Civil) No. 210/2012 etc.
and these paras are  primarily based on said order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. Plea taken by SCIC in these Paras are  false and
misconceived. Moreover SCIC, with a conspire mindset to punish the
info-seeker at any cost, deliberately took no cognizance of order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309
OF 2012 IN Re.  WRIT PETITION [C] NO.210 OF 2012 on September 03,
2013, operative portion of this order is being reproduced below :
32.   Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 this Court can
review its judgment or order on the ground of error apparent on the
face of  record and on an application for review can reverse or modify
its decision  on  the ground of mistake of law or fact.  As  the
judgment  under  review  suffers from mistake of law, we allow the
Review Petitions,  recall  the  directions and declarations in the
judgment under review and dispose of  Writ  Petition (C) No. 210 of
2012 with the following declarations and directions:
    i) We declare that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of  the  Act  are  not
 ultra       vires the Constitution.
  ii) We declare that Sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Act  do  not
debar  a       Member of Parliament or Member of the  Legislature  of
any State  or  Union Territory, as the case may be, or a  person
holding  any  other  office of profit or connected with any political
party or carrying  on   any business or pursuing any  profession  from
 being  considered  for   appointment  as  Chief   Information
Commissioner   or   Information Commissioner, but after such person is
appointed as Chief  Information Commissioner or Information
Commissioner, he  has  to  discontinue  as  Member of Parliament or
Member of the  Legislature  of  any  State  or Union Territory, or
discontinue to hold any other office of profit  or   remain connected
with any political party or carry on any business  or       pursue
any  profession  during  the  period  he  functions  as  Chief
Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner.
 iii) We direct that only persons of  eminence  in  public  life  with
 wide       knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in
Sections 12(5) and       15(5)  of  the  Act  be  considered  for
appointment  as  Information       Commissioner and Chief Information
Commissioner.
  iv) We further direct that persons of eminence in public  life  with
 wide       knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in
Sections 12(5)  and 15(5) of the Act, namely,  law,  science  and
technology,  social service, management, journalism,  mass  media  or
administration  and  governance, be considered by the Committees under
Sections  12(3)  and 15(3) of the Act for appointment as Chief
Information Commissioner or information Commissioners.
   v) We further direct that the Committees under Sections 12(3)  and
15(3)       of the Act while making recommendations to the  President
or  to  the       Governor, as the case may be, for  appointment  of
Chief  Information       Commissioner and Information Commissioners
must  mention  against  the       name of each candidate recommended,
the facts to indicate his eminence       in public  life,  his
knowledge  in  the  particular  field  and  his  experience in the
particular field and these facts must be  accessible       to the
citizens as part of their right to information  under  the  Act  after
the appointment is made.
  vi) We also direct that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is
of  the       opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be
decided  in  a matter coming up before the Information  Commission,
he  will  ensure  that the matter is heard by an Information
Commissioner who  has  wide knowledge and experience in the field of
law.

7)      Hon'ble Apex court arrived at conclusions as given in Para 6 of
this letter on the basis of facts as detailed by Apex court in Paras
21,22,23 & 24 of order passed in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012
IN Re.  WRIT PETITION [C] NO.210 OF 2012 on September 03, 2013 which
are  being reproduced below :
21.    In  the  judgment  under  review,  this  Court  after
examining  the provisions of the Act, however, has held that there is
a lis to  be  decided by the Information Commission in asmuch as the
request  of  a  party  seeking information is to be allowed or  to  be
 disallowed  and  hence  requires  a judicial mind.  But we find that
the lis  that  the  Information  Commission has to decide was only
with regard to the information  in  possession  of  a public authority
and the  Information  Commission  was  required  to  decide whether
the information could be given  to  the  person  asking  for  it  or
should be withheld in public interest or any  other  interest
protected  by the provisions of the Act.  The  Information
Commission,  therefore,  while deciding this lis does not really
perform a judicial function, but  performs an administrative function
in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Act. As has been held by
Lord Greene, M.R. in B. Johnson & Co.  (Builders),  Ltd. v. Minister
of Health (supra):
          "Lis, of course,  implies  the  conception  of  an  issue
joined           between two parties.  The decision of a lis, in the
ordinary  use of legal language, is the decision of that issue.   The
What  is  described here as a lis – the raising of the  objections  to
 the  order, the  consideration  of  the  matters  so  raised  and
the  representations of the local authority and  the  objectors  –  is
merely a stage in the process of arriving  at  an  administrative
     decision.  It is a  stage  which  the  courts  have  always  said
 requires a certain method of approach and method of conduct,  but  it
is not a lis inter partes, and for the simple reason that  the local
authority and the objectors are  not  parties  to  anything   that
resembles litigation."
22.   In  the  judgment  under  review,  this  Court  has  also  held
after examining the provisions of the Act that the Information
Commission  decides matters which may affect the rights of third
parties  and  hence  there  is requirement of judicial mind.  For
example, under  Section  8(1)(d)  of  the Act, there is no obligation
to  furnish  information  including  commercial confidence, trade
secrets,  or  intellectual  property,  the  disclosure  of which would
harm the competitive position of the  third  party,  unless  the
competent authority is satisfied that the larger  public  interest
warrants the disclosure of such information.  Similarly, the right to
privacy  of  a third party, which is part of his personal liberty
under Article 21  of  the Constitution, may be breached if a
particular kind  of  information,  purely of personal nature  may  be
directed  to  be  furnished  by  the  concerned authority.  To protect
the rights of third parties, Section 11  of  the  Act provides that
where a Central Public Information Officer or a  State  Public
Information  Officer,  as  the  case  may  be,  intends  to  disclose
 any information or record or part thereof, may on a request made
under the  Act,which relates to or has been supplied by a third party
and has been  treated as confidential by that third party, a written
notice will have to be  given to such third party inviting such party
to make a submission in  writing  or orally, regarding whether the
information  should  be  disclosed,  and  such submission of the third
party can be kept in view while  taking  a  decision about disclosure
of the information.  The  decision  taken  by  the  Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer,  as  the
case may be, under Section 11 of the Act is appealable under Section
19  of the  Act  before  the   information  Commission  and  when  the
  Information Commission decides such an appeal,  it  decides  only
whether  or  not  the information should be furnished to the citizen
in view of the  objection  of the third party.  Here also the
Information Commission does not  decide  the rights of a third party
but only whether the information which  is  held  by or under the
control of a public authority in relation  to  or  supplied  by that
third party could be furnished to a citizen  under  the  provisions
of the  Act.   Hence,  the  Information  Commission  discharges
administrative functions, not judicial functions.
23.    While  performing  these  administrative  functions,   however,
  the Information Commissions are required to  act  in  a  fair  and
just  manner following the procedure laid down in Sections 18, 19  and
 20  of  the  Act.But this does not mean that the Information
Commissioners  are  like  Judges or Justices who must have judicial
experience,  training  and  acumen.   In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and Others  (supra), Hidayatullah, J,
explained:
        "33.     In my opinion, a Court in 'the strict sense is a
tribunal         which is a part of  the  ordinary  hierarchy  of
Courts of  Civil         Judicature maintained  by  the  State  under
its  constitution  to exercise the judicial power of the State. These
Courts perform  all    the judicial functions of the State except
those that are  excluded by law from their jurisdiction. The word
"judicial", be  it  noted,is itself capable of two meanings. They were
 admirably  stated  by  Lopes, L.J. in Royal Aquarium and Summer and
Winter Garden  Society v. Parkinson (1892) 1 QB 431(452) in these
words:
            "The word 'judicial' has two meanings. It may  refer  to
the               discharge of duties exercisable by a judge or by
justices  in court,  or  to  administrative  duties  which  need  not
 be performed in court, but in respect of which it  is  necessary  to
bring to bear a  judicial  mind  -  that  is,  a  mind  to determine
what is fair and just in  respect  of  the  matters under
consideration."
        That  an  officer  is  required  to  decide  matters   before
 him         "judicially" in the second sense does not make him a
Court or  even a tribunal, because that only establishes that he  is
following  a  standard of conduct, and is free from bias or interest."
   24.Once the Court is clear  that  Information  Commissions  do  not
  exercise judicial powers and actually discharge administrative
functions,   the Court cannot rely on the constitutional principles of
 separation  of    powers  and  independence  of  judiciary  to
direct   that   Information   Commissions must be manned by persons
with judicial training,  experience    and acumen or former Judges of
the High Court or the Supreme Court.   The    principles of separation
of powers and independence of judiciary embodied    in our
Constitution no  doubt  require  that  judicial  power  should  be
exercised by persons with judicial experience, training and acumen.
For    this reason, when judicial powers vested in the High Court were
sought to    be transferred to tribunals or judicial powers are vested
in tribunals by    an Act of the legislature, this Court has insisted
that such tribunals be    manned by persons with judicial experience
and  training,  such  as  High    Court Judges and District Judges of
some experience.   Accordingly,  when    the powers of the High Court
under Companies Act, 1956 were sought to  be    transferred to
Tribunals  by  the  Companies  (Amendment)  Act,  2002,  a
Constitution Bench of this Court has held in Union of India v. R.
Gandhi,
   President Madras Bar Association (supra):
           "When the legislature proposes to substitute a tribunal in
place            of the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction  which
 the  High  Court is exercising, it goes without saying that  the
standards  expected from the judicial members of the Tribunal and
standards   applied for appointing such members,  should  be  as
nearly  as  possible as applicable to High Court  Judges,  which  are
apart    from a basic degree in law, rich experience in the  practice
of  law,  independent  outlook,  integrity,   character   and   good
reputation. It is also implied that only  men  of  standing  who  have
special expertise  in  the  field  to  which  the  Tribunal   relates,
will be eligible for appointment as technical  members. Therefore,
only persons with a  judicial  background,  that  is,    those who
have been or are Judges of the High Court and  lawyers  with the
prescribed experience, who are eligible for appointment  as High Court
Judges,  can  be  considered  for  appointment  as  judicial members."
   In Pareena Swarup v. Union of India (supra), having found  that
judicial    powers were  to  be  exercised  by  the  Appellate
Tribunals  under  the    Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002
this Court held that to protect    the constitutional guarantee of
independence of  judiciary,  persons  who    are qualified to be
judges be  appointed  as  members  of  the  Appellate    Tribunal.
But, as we have seen, the powers exercised by the  Information
Commissions under the Act were not earlier vested in the  High  Court
or    subordinate court or any other court and are not  in  any  case
judicial    powers and therefore the Legislature need not provide for
appointment  of    judicial members in the Information Commissions.

8)      Apex Court has made it clear  that  Information  Commissions  do
not   exercise judicial powers and actually discharge administrative
functions only and also that  the  Information  Commissions
discharges  administrative functions, not judicial functions. Hence
pleas made by SCIC in Para 7,8,9, 10,11,12 & 13  are entirely
misconceived and on the face of it prove misuse of power by SCIC with
the mala fide intent to intimidate the class of awakened citizen who
are using Right to Information to expose irregularities to curb
corruption in public life.

9)      It appears that SCIC was a dead corrupt person who was working as
an agent of the corruption ridden public servants. Perhaps this was
the reason that SCIC never issued notices of contempt to  the
Government officials who failed to recover fines imposed U/S 20 of RTI
act 2005 or comply the other interlocutory orders passed by UPSIC. As
per details uploaded on website of UPSIC, there were 3479 cases in
which financial penalties were imposed on PIOs up-to 31-01-2014. The
details are available at http://upsic.up.nic.in/4-1-B.pdf weblink. A
large no. of these penalty orders have not been complied so far but
contempt proceedings have never been initiated against any of the
public servants who have failed to comply penalty orders of UPSIC.

10)     The law has been settled in Grindlays Bank versus Central
Government Industrial Tribunal & others 1980(Supp) SCC 420 that the
power of statutory review must be conferred as one of law whereas the
power of procedural review is inherent or implied in any court. In
absence of so, no court or quasi judicial authority can exercise the
power of substantial review. Thus it is clear that no review lies on
merits unless a statue specifically provided for it. While deciding
appeals & complaints, SCIC works as a quasi-judicial authority.
Penalties imposed by SCIC under section 20 of RTI act 2005 are imposed
after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. Rolling back of
imposed penalty is exercise of power of substantial review of its
earlier decision of imposition of penalty by SCIC. This is not a
procedural review at all so it cannot be done by SCIC unless clearly
specified in some rules. SCIC Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj was said to be
withdrawing penalty orders after taking bribes from the PIOs. This
matter should also be investigated thoroughly.


11)     RTI act 2005 envisages and conceptualizes State Chief information
Commissioner as the Apex custodian of RTI act in the state but facts
and figures as detailed in this letter of mine makes it clear that Ex.
State Chief information Commissioner Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has acted
as if he were a contract-killer hired by the corrupt public servants
to strangle RTI act in Uttar Pradesh and this is the reason that led
SCIC to deliberately ignore the law as laid down by apex court in
REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Re.  WRIT PETITION [C] NO.210
OF 2012 on September 03, 2013 and pass the said order against the
info-seeker. Ex. Chief Information Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh acted
arbitrarily beyond set principals of jurisprudence  by  sentencing
fine/imprisonment to info-seeker for his alleged act of contempt of
court.

12)      Sec 17(1) of RTI act 2005 says that 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 and Sec 17(3) of RTI act 2005 says
that 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,— 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. Since
SCIC has retired so there is no question of action of removal of SCIC
under these clauses of RTI act 2005 so through this letter of mine I
am requesting your goodself for a judicial probe into this matter  and
punish Ex. Chief Information Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh Sri Ranjit
Singh Pankaj as per the law of the land.

Copy for information & necessary action to :
1-      Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in

Attachments :1- Five scanned copies as detailed above
2-      Text of complaint

Date : 04-07-2014

Sincerely yours,

Urvashi Sharma
Secretary - YAISHWARYAJ SEVA SANSTHAAN
101,Narayan Tower, Opposite F block Idgah
Rajajipuram,Lucknow-226017,Uttar Pradesh,India
Contact 9369613513
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption   9455553838


http://upcpri.blogspot.in/

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/460utb60fbbb/?view=att&th=1470067dfa7fbcaa&attid=0.1&disp=thd&realattid=file0&safe=1&zw

upsic contempt appellant 1.jpg
559K View Scan and download

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/460utb60fbbb/?view=att&th=1470067dfa7fbcaa&attid=0.2&disp=thd&realattid=file2&safe=1&zw

upsic contempt appellant 2.jpg
647K View Scan and download

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/460utb60fbbb/?view=att&th=1470067dfa7fbcaa&attid=0.3&disp=thd&realattid=file3&safe=1&zw

upsic contempt appellant 3.jpg
626K View Scan and download

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/460utb60fbbb/?view=att&th=1470067dfa7fbcaa&attid=0.4&disp=thd&realattid=file4&safe=1&zw

upsic contempt appellant 4.jpg
623K View Scan and download

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/460utb60fbbb/?view=att&th=1470067dfa7fbcaa&attid=0.5&disp=thd&realattid=file5&safe=1&zw

upsic contempt appellant 5.jpg
461K View Scan and download

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/doc.gif

complaint text word file.docx
35K View as HTML Scan and download

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@yahoo.co.in>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment