STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(94641-55956)
Sh. Kapil Katyal
Advocate,
460/6, Katyal House,
New Kidwai Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Technical Education &
Industrial Training, Punjab,
Sector 36, Chandigarh.
…..Respondent
CC- 1577/11
Order
Present:
For the complainant: Sh. Vikas Gupta, advocate (99880-13350)
assisted by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, advocate.
For the respondent: S/Sh. Amrik Singh, Asstt. Director (01725022358); Sukhdev Singh, PIO (98729-86107); Harpal Singh,
Deputy Director-cum-PIO (0172-5022363); Baljinder Singh,
Principal, ITI (0161-2490426)
Oral as well as written submissions made by both the parties
were heard at length.
I have gone through the submissions of the parties and am of
the view that the matter should be placed before a larger bench.
Accordingly, the matter is sent to the ld. Chief Information
Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh for taking further steps in this respect.
Fresh date of hearing shall be communicated to the parties
by the Registry.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(99881-99043)
Sh. S.P. Sharma
H. No. 6904, Street No. 12,
New Janta Nagar,
Ludhiana.
…..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Technical Education &
Industrial Training, Punjab,
Sector 36, Chandigarh.
…..Respondent
CC- 1578/11
Order
Present:
For the complainant: Sh. Vikas Gupta, advocate (99880-13350)
assisted by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, advocate.
For the respondent: S/Sh. Amrik Singh, Asstt. Director (01725022358); Sukhdev Singh, PIO (98729-86107); Harpal Singh,
Deputy Director-cum-PIO (0172-5022363); Baljinder Singh,
Principal, ITI (0161-2490426)
Oral as well as written submissions made by both the parties
were heard at length.
I have gone through the submissions of the parties and am of
the view that the matter should be placed before a larger bench.
Accordingly, the matter is sent to the ld. Chief Information
Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh for taking further steps in this respect.
Fresh date of hearing shall be communicated to the parties
by the Registry.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Vinod Kumar Mehta,
Phase II,
Civil Lines,
Fazilka-152123.
…Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Secretary, Govt. of Punjab,
Revenue and Rehabilitation & Disaster Management Deptt.
Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh.
…Respondent
CC- 1408/11
Order
Present:
For the complainant: Sh. S.M. Bhanot (98888-10811)
For the respondent: Ms. Sarla Rani, Supdt.-APIO (01722740611-4237)
Vide application dated 20.12.2010, Sh. V.K. Mehta sought the
following information: “That the Government of Punjab providing various types of
facilities and benefits to Riot and Terrorist affected families,
please provide me the following information, record and
instructions in this regard:
1. Please provide specific detailed information and instructions
of the Punjab Government that which eligibility criteria is
required to be completed under which any victim/victim
family falls under category of Terrorist Affected Person and
Riot Affected Person or family/families etc.?
2. Provide specific detailed information and instructions of the
Punjab Government which benefits are required to be
sanctioned in favour of Terrorist Affected person/families and
Riot Affected Person/families etc., and by which authorities?
3. Provide specific detailed information and instructions of the
Punjab Government which authorities are responsible to
issued Red Card and provide jobs to victim to Terrorist or
Riot Affected families to whom ex-gratia grant was
sanctioned much earlier?
4. That one of terrorist incident was happened near Zira and an
FIR No. 141 dated 13.07.1989 was registered in this regard
at Police Station Zira, and due to that incident one of leg of
Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Dewan Chand of Mandi Ladhuka,
Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur damaged more than 40%.
-:2:Please provide detailed information and record which type of
facility or any benefit sanctioned by the Government in
favour of such Vinod Kumar?
5. That as per terrorist incident Vinod Kumar/applicant become
handicapped due to damage of on one leg more than 40%,
please provide specific information and instructions that he
falls under Terrorist Affected Person or not? If no then
provide its detailed reasons and instructions?
6. Provide detailed information that above Vinod Kumar is
entitle to obtain Red Card and other faculties as provided to
other Terrorist Affected Families from time to time? If no then
provide details reasons and instructions of the Government
of Punjab in this regard which debars to get such facilities
and benefits?
7. That un-married son (namely Rajiv Kumar) of Smt. Asha
Rani W/o Sh. Harbans Lal Midha now St. No. 1, Thakar
Abadi, Abohar, District Ferozepur was died due to occurring
of Terrorist incident near Zira and an FIR No. 183 resulted an
amount of ex-gratia was granted her by the S.D.O(C),
Jalalabad (W), District Ferozepur. Please provide specific
information and instructions that such family is eligible to
whom Red Card was required to be issued or not? If no then
provide such instructions? If Yes, then provide copy of Red
Card if issued to her and if the same is still not issued then to
whom you should held responsible for such act and now
what does you propose for issuance of Red Cards to this
family?
8. Provide copies f applications which submitted by Smt. Asha
Rani w/o Sh. Harbans Lal i.e. mother of deceased Rajiv
Kumar to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, SDM
Jalalabad (W) and SDM Zira for sanctioning of subsistence
allowance / pension in her favour under category of Terrorist
affected families and providing of job to one of her family
members and also provide detailed record which action
taken thereon by each authority after received of those
applications?
9. That Smt. Asha Rani, mother of deceased Rajiv Kumar
moved number applications including dated 24.12.2003 for
providing her subsistence allowance / pension under
category of Terrorist Affected to the Deputy Commissioner,
Ferozepur copy of which enclosed, please provide specific
information and record what is status of her application? If
the same is still not sanctioned, then provide detailed
reasons and instructions and to whom you should hold
Contd……3/-
-:3:responsible in such lapses and now what does you propose
for sanctioning the same?
10. That is also seems from letter of SDM Jalalabad (W) which
addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur copy of
which enclosed that number of affected families applied for
providing of job to their family members which were lying
pending. Please provide us detailed information and record
regarding status of this 6 files.
The present complaint has been filed before the Commission on
19.04.2011 contending that no information had been provided.
Today, Sh. S.M. Bhanot is present on behalf of the complainant
with an authority letter from him. During the hearing, Sh. Bhanot has made
the following written submissions: “1.
That the legal position may please be seen in the light of
violations of Section 7(1), Section 7(6), 6(3), 5(4) of the RTI Act,
2005 read with Rule 4(3) and 4(4) of the Punjab RTI Rules,
2007 and respondent failed to perform its statutory duty.
2.
It is further prayed that the remedy / relief may please be
provided as warranted under Section 7(2), 19(8)(b) & (c), 20/1
and 20(2) of the RTI Act 2005 and may inquire into the matter
under section 18(1) & 18(2) of the Act ibid.
3.
Receipt of RTI application denied despite the postal
department confirming delivery on 23.12.2010.
4.
The information relates to entire State of Punjab, but the
matter transferred to only DC Ferozepur. As per the decision
No.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906
in
Appeal
No.
CIC/SMA/2011/000278/SG 16 June, 2011, RTI application has
to be transferred to all Public Authorities and not one, in view of
Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1896.
5.
Even after the receipt of copy from the Information
Commission, no creditable action taken till date.
6.
It is, therefore, prayed that invoking its jurisdiction as are
vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, under Section 18(3)(a) to (f), the Commission
may:
(a)
summoning and enforcing the attendance of
persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence
on oath and to produce the documents or things;
Contd……4/-
-:4:(b)
requiring
documents;
(c)
the
discovery
and
inspection
of
receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d)
issuing summons for examination of witnesses or
documents; and
7.
Any other matter which may be prescribed.
The
Commission may also, during inquiry of any complaint under this
Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under
the control of the public authority, and no such record may be
withheld from it on any grounds as empowered to do so under
Section 18(4) ibid.
8.
Incomplete information supplied at point no. 4 as
inspected today in the court;
9.
D.C. Ferozepur not at all responded.
10.
Delay in furnishing the information.
11.
Copies attached are not attested.”
Ms. Sarla Rani, appearing on behalf of the respondent,
submitted as follows: “That the letter dated 20.12.2010 from Sh. Vinod Kumar Mehta,
Phase II, Fazilka seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005
has not been received in the Revenue Department, Disaster
Management-3 Branch. A report in this regard was also sought
from the Circulating Branch of the Revenue Department. As per
this report also, the said letter from Sh. Mehta has not been
received.
Notice of hearing under the RTI Act, 2005 was
received on 25.05.2011 in the DM-3 Branch. Under this, the
applicant had sought information on ten points. Information on
points no. 1 to 6 has been sent by the DM-3 Branch on
04.07.2011 by registered post. The information under points no.
7, 8, 9 and 10 pertains to the office of Deputy Commissioner,
Ferozepur and therefore, the request of the applicant was
transferred to his office on 31.05.2011 under Section 6(3) of the
RTI Act, 2005. The said office shall be reminded to forward the
information to the complainant, direct.”
Since the transfer under section 6(3) has been effected beyond
the stipulated time limit of five days, the same is not accepted. It now
becomes the responsibility of the PIO, respondent office to procure the
information from whichever quarter it is available and provide the same to the
complainant, under intimation to the Commission.
Contd…….5/-
-:5:For further proceedings, to come up on 17.08.2011 at 11.00
A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sub. Sukhdev Singh (Retd.)
H. No. B/XI/2868,
Anaz Mandi Road,
Barnala – 148101
… Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer
O/o The Senior Superintendent of Police,
Moga.
CC- 255/2011
Order
Present:
…Respondent
Complainant Sub. Sukhdev Singh (Retd.) in person.
For the respondent: Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Dy. SP (98148-72079).
Oral as well as written submissions of both the parties along
with documents annexed thereto have been taken on record.
For pronouncement of the order, to come up on 17.08.2011 at
11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(97804-21447)
Sh. R.S. Randhawa,
Advocate,
Chamber No. 90,
District Courts,
Mansa.
…..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Deputy Commissioner,
Mansa.
…..Respondent
CC- 3004/2010
Order
This case was last taken up for hearing on 12.05.2011 when the
complainant Sh. R.S. Randhawa appeared personally. Besides, Sh. Rajesh
Tripathi, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mansa along with Sh. Gurmeet
Singh, Senior Asstt. came present on behalf of the respondent. Taking on
record the respective submissions of both the parties, the case was adjourned
to date i.e. 05.07.2011 for pronouncement of the order.
Sh. R.S. Randhawa had sought information regarding red cards
issued to the 1984 riot affected families in the district of Mansa, vide his
application dated 27.07.2010 which stood provided to him only on 06.04.2011
as recorded in the said order.
In the hearing dated 20.12.2010, as the complainant prayed for
award of compensation, the respondent PIO was directed to show cause as to
why suitable compensation be not awarded in favour of Sh. Randhawa, the
complainant.
In the subsequent hearing dated 07.03.2011, a show cause
notice was issued to Sh. Rajesh Tripathi, Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Mansa-cum-PIO for the delay caused in providing the relevant information as
per the original application dated 27.07.2010.
As per directions of the
Commissioner, Sh. Rajesh Tripathi appeared personally in the hearing on
12.05.2011 and made submissions in defence, which were taken on record
and the matter was posted to date for pronouncement of the order. The
submissions of the respondent read as under: “Ref. your order dated 07.03.2011.
1.
That the applicant submitted his request for information
dated 27.07.2010 to the PIO, Revenue, Rehabilitation and
Disaster Management Department, Punjab seeking information
regarding the riot affected families. The application for
information except on points no. 2(a), 3(b), 5(a), 5(d)(1), 6(a)
and 8 was transferred to this office under Section 6(3) of the RTI
Act, 2005, and was received in this office on 18.08.2010.
Contd…..2/-
-:2:2.
Despite the fact that the information was administrative or
pertaining third party, no attempt was made either to decline or
disallow inspection of the records, information spread over 55
pages was supplied to the applicant vide this office letter no.
2383/RTI dated 20.09.2010 and the same had also been
received by him on the said date.
3.
As the information on point no. 1(a) (1 and 11) pertained
to the PIO, office of Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, it was
transferred to the said office in terms of section 6(3) of the RTI
Act, 2005 vide this office letter no. 2401/RTI dated 27.09.2010
and a copy was endorsed to the applicant also. The PIO, office
of Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda has supplied the information
under letter no. 3297/RTI dated 22.11.2010 by registered post.
4.
The applicant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Punjab
State Information Commission and the Commission directed him
to inspect the records in this office on 25.11.2010 at 11.00 A.M.
In respectful compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble
Commission, the records were allowed to be inspected by the
applicant on 25.11.2010, 02.12.2010 and 15.12.2010 (three
days) to his satisfaction.
5.
In further compliance of the order of the Hon’ble
Commission dated 20.12.2010, this office, vide letter no.
277/RTI dated 10.02.2011, sent the information by registered
post which the complainant refused to accept and the Hon’ble
Commission had been apprised of this, vide this office letter no.
493/RTI dated 03.03.2011.
6.
It is relevant to submit here that the application had been
dealt with, before the undersigned joined as Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Mansa on 24.02.2011. Thus, there has been no
reluctance on the part of the undersigned in providing the
information.
7.
From the above, it is clear that following the RTI Act,
2005 in toto, the information has already been provided to the
applicant.
The refusal of the complainant to accept the
registered cover containing information clearly shows that he
only intended to harass this office.
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that keeping in view the
above facts, the present case may kindly be closed.”
On careful examination of the documents produced by the
parties, there is no denying the fact that complete and relevant information as
per the original application dated 27.07.2010 came to be provided to the
Contd……..3/-
-:3:complainant on 06.04.2011. Excluding the statutory period of 30 days as
provided under the Act, there is delay of over seven months and the
complainant had to attend six hearings before the Commission during this
period.
After considering all the relevant aspects, the Commission, in
order to meet the ends of justice, awards a compensation of Rs. 3,000/(Rupees Three Thousand Only) in favour of Sh. R.S. Randhawa, for the
financial and mental detriments suffered in getting the information under the
RTI Act, 2005.
I have gone through the submissions made by Sh. Rajesh
Tripathi, the PIO, in reply to the show cause notice. Apart from shortage of
staff, the poor infrastructure prevailing in the respondent office has also
surfaced as one of the main factors for the delay in providing the information.
I am satisfied with the explanation and am convinced that there was no
malafide on the part of the respondent for the delay in providing the
information. Thus it is not a case fit for imposition of any penalty.
The amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,000/- is to be paid by the
Public Authority, under intimation to the Commission, within a period of one
month. A copy of the acknowledgment from the complainant be forwarded to
the Commission.
For confirmation of compliance, to come up on 17.08.2011 at
11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sant Shamsher Singh
s/o S. Sajan Singh,
VPO Nanakpur Jageda,
Distt. Ludhiana - 141117
…..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Sub-Divisional Magistrate (West)
Ludhiana.
CC- 3344/2010
Order
Present:
…..Respondent
None for the parties.
In the earlier hearing dated 12.05.2011, it was recorded: “In view of the conflicting versions of the parties in all the
hearings conducted so far, both the parties are once again
directed to be present personally in the next hearing so that the
factual position is known and the matter decided.”
The complainant Sant Shamsher Singh sought an adjournment
over the telephone this morning for personal reasons.
No one has come present on behalf of the respondent.
Acceding to the request of the complainant, the matter is now
posted to 17.08.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber for further proceedings.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
After the hearing was over, Sh. Vikas Kumar, clerk (9316966111) came present on behalf of the respondent with an authority letter in his
favour. He made the following written submissions today: “That the information sought by Sant Shamsher Singh has
already been provided including the copies of the relevant
Jamabandis, vide this office letter no. 9314 dated 08.11.2010;
letter no. 9661 dated 28.12.2010 and by various
communications from the office of Naib Tehsildar.
Naib
Tehsildar also contacted the complainant on his mobile no.
98147-88012 to know if there were any objections or
discrepancies and could examine the records by visiting this
Contd…….2/-
-:2:office on any working day. However, no response has been
received.
It is submitted that the complainant is harassing the officials
intentionally; therefore, the present case may kindly be closed.”
Sh. Vikas Kumar has been advised of the proceedings in today’s
hearing, including the next date fixed.
As already noted above, for further proceedings, to come up on
17.08.2011 at 11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(98152-91475)
Sh. Bahadur Singh
Ward No. 5,
House No. 1030,
Opposite Dutt Road,
G.T. Road,
Moga-142001
… Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer
O/o Distt. Education Officer (SE)
Faridkot
…Respondent
CC- 989/11
Order
Present:
Complainant Sh. Bahadur Singh in person.
For the respondent: Sh. Suresh Arora, Deputy D.E.O. (SE)
(94173-81780)
During the proceedings today, Sh. Bahadur Singh submitted that
due to non-receipt of the information sought, he is incurring a loss of approx.
Rs. 1,000/- per month towards his pension payment. Respondent stated that
all the records of the office are open to the complainant and he can visit on
any working day and examine the records and take copies of the documents
required.
It was mutually agreed between the parties that the complainant
shall visit the office of respondent on any working day during office hours and
examine the complete file. Respondent has agreed to provide copies of the
documents from the file upon request from the complainant.
Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and
disposed of.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(98767-20562)
Sh. Rashid Mohammad,
s/o Sh. Ruldu Mohammad,
Village Haider Nagar,
Tehsil Malerkotla,
Distt. Sangrur – 148023
…Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o District Education Officer (EE)
Moga.
…Respondent
CC- 1576/11
Order
Present:
Complainant Sh. Rashid Mohammad in person.
For the respondent: Sh. Baldev Singh, D.E.O. (EE) (9417976161)
This complaint has been filed with the Commission on
27.05.2011 by Sh. Rashid Mohammad when no information was provided to
him in response to his application dated 29.01.2010, whereby he had sought
the following information: “I had applied for recruitment of teaching fellow under the B.C.
category in your office. In this connection, please provide me
the following information category-wise from the latest merit list:
1.
2.
3.
Copy of latest merit list of general category;
Copy of latest merit list of B.C. category;
Copy of latest merit list of S.C. category;”
The complainant submitted that vide communication dated
11.05.2010, Superintendent, office of DEO (EE) Moga marked the said
application to S. Roop Singh, the official concerned in his office, to do the
needful. He further submitted that a reminder was also sent on 11.04.2011.
Today, the respondent submitted that except for one point which
is not contained in the original application i.e. list of appointees from the
common merit list, complete information stands provided. Respondent is,
however, willing to provide the information to the complainant on this
additional point also, shortly and the complainant expressed his satisfaction.
Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and
disposed of. Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kukkar
Phase I, Civil Lines,
Fazilka
…Appellant
Versus
1.
2.
Public Information Officer
O/o Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)
Sector 62,
Mohali
Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)
Sector 62,
Mohali
…Respondents
AC - 457/11
Order
Present:
None for the appellant.
For the respondents: S/Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Supdt.
Deepak Bansal, Supdt. (98760-51131)
and
Vide application dated 12.01.2011, Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kukkar
sought the following information: “1.
How many total applications and amount is received
against above offer / scheme?
2.
As per advertisement appeared in Daily Ajit Jalandhar in
this regard by the GMADA it was stated to see further details on
website GMADA, please provide specific information and record
that to whom duties were assigned to display/up-date website of
GMADA in this regard and on which date information and terms
were for inviting of application against above offer was displayed
on website? If, the same is still not displayed/updated then to
whom you held responsible and which action do you propose
and against whom officials?
3.
Please provide information that a person of Red Card
Holder who is putting thumb impression being illiterate can apply
under this Scheme? If, yes then advise such information is
clearly mentioned in the brochure and application form or not? If
no then provide specific instructions in this regard?
4.
Provide specific information and record that how many
days and on which date General Public was informed through
an advertisement by the GMADA regarding extension of above
scheme from 14.12.2010 to 24.12.2010?
Contd…….2/-
-:2:5.
Provide specific information, instruction, instructions and
record that how many days it is required to be informed the
General Public before closure of any scheme in case further
extending such scheme and on which date General Public was
informed through an advertisement regarding extension of
above scheme from 24.12.2010 to 10.01.2011?
6.
Provide specific record and information that through
which General Public was informed before 24.12.2010 i.e.
closure date of scheme regarding further extension of this
Scheme up to 10.01.2011? If no, then to whom you should hold
responsible for such act and omission?
7.
Provide specific information of the Government under
which any scheme such like above of GMADA can be extended
even after closure of scheme?
8.
Provide specific information and record that on which
dates and how many amounts were collected by GMADA before
closure of scheme i.e. 10.01.2011 from its authorized Bank who
collected as earnest money against this scheme and in which
shape such amounts were invited by the GMADA keeping in
view to earn interest, gain or profit etc.?
9.
Provide specific information that common man or who
applied for draw of plot can remain present at the place where
draw of plots scheduled to be conducted or not? If no, then
provide specific instructions in this regard?
10.
That how many total applications are received against
plots of 500 Sq. yards, 400 Sq. yards, 300 Sq. yards, 250 Sq.
yards, 200 Sq. yards, 150 Sq. yards; and 125 Sq. yards?
11.
Provide list of eligible candidates of each size of plots
who applied for different categories of plots i.e. 500, 400, 300,
250, 150 and 125 Sq. yards.
12.
Provide specific information that any General Power of
Attorney holder or Special Power of Attorney holder can apply
for such type of offers or schemes on behalf of original
applicant. If no, then provide such instructions.
13.
Provide specific information and instructions that any
allottee of plot or flat against such type of offers / schemes can
appoint General / Special Power of Attorney Holder.
14.
Provide specimen copy of Power of Attorney under which
any allottee of the plot can appoint Power of Attorney Holder
and which is acceptable to GMADA?
Contd…….3/-
-:3:15.
That on of person who was residing in adjoining area of
Punjab which falls under the State of Haryana, but when he
came in the area of Punjab for some purpose then he was died
due to occurring of terrorist incident. As a result the Government
of Punjab sanctioned a prescribed pension to his wife under
category of terrorist affected family such like families of Punjab
State. Now provide me specific instructions and information that
his wife and his dependent in case of death of his wife can apply
against quota of terrorist affected families or not? If no then
provide detailed reason along-with specific instructions?
16.
Provide specific information and record on which date
and to whom duties were assigned for updating Website of
GMADA when above scheme was extended from 24.12.2010 to
10.01.2011, on which time and date the concerned official was
up-dated the Website? If, the same was not updated then to
whom you should hold responsible and which action has been
initiated against erring official or likely to be initiated?
17.
Provide specific information and detail instructions that
which procedure is required to be adopted for displaying on
Website of GMADA when any scheme is flouted or thereafter
any change is made in it?”
Respondents present submitted that various communications
dated 01.02.2011, 24.05.2011 and 07.06.2011, complete information has
already been provided to the complainant as per his original application dated
12.01.2011. Copies of the said letters have also been tendered.
It is about a month when the last communication from the
respondent was sent.
The complainant is not present today nor has any objections
been received from him.
Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and
disposed of.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(98885-64455)
Sh. Sarabjit Singh Kahlon
s/o Sh. Sampuran Singh Kahlon,
‘Kahlon Villa’
Opp. Telephone Exchange,
VPO Bhattian Bet, Ludhiana-141008.
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Greater Mohali Area Development Authority,
PUDA Bhawan Sector 62,
Mohali.
…Complainant
…Respondent
CC- 1557/11
Order
Present:
For the complainant: Sh. Kuldeep Khaira (98885-64455)
For the respondent: S/Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Supdt.
Deepak Bansal, Supdt. (98760-51131)
and
This complaint has been filed with the Commission on
26.05.2011 by Sh. Sarabjit Singh Kahlon when no information was provided to
him in response to his application dated 17.03.2011, whereby he had sought
the following information:
“Regarding my complaint dated 11.12.2010:
1.
On what date was the said complaint received in your
office?
2.
The senior most official before whom the same was put
forth and his file notings and directions given.
3.
The name and designation of the official appointed to
inquire into the authenticity of the complaint’s contents.
4.
The chronology of events thereafter, and all records /
correspondence that emanated with respect to the same.
5.
Request copies of all correspondence; with Mohali
Cricket Association and Punjab Cricket Association.
6.
Is the said complaint still under investigation or has been
completed? If completed, request copy of the final report or its
present status.
7.
Copy of action taken report.”
During the proceedings, it transpired that respondents have
brought some information to the court.
Complainant insisted that the
information be duly numbered and dated and Sh. Mahajan assured the Court
the same will be done shortly, and sought some time, which is granted.
For further proceedings, to come up on 17.08.2011 at 11.00
A.M. in the Chamber.
Contd……2/-
-:2:Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(94170-81104)
Dr. Sham Lal Thukral,
A-5/ii, Hajirattan Chowk,
Civil Lines,
Bathinda
…Appellant
Versus
1.
2.
Public Information Officer
O/o Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev)
Zila Parishad Complex,
Bathinda
Public Information Officer,
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Deputy Commissioner,
Bathinda
…Respondents
AC - 444/11
Order
Present:
For the appellant: Sh. Sardavinder Goyal, advocate (9041983187)
For the respondent: Sh. Darshan Singh (98726-67927)
Sh. Sardavinder Goyal, appearing on behalf of the appellant,
submitted that complete information as per the original application has already
been provided.
He further submitted that the respondents had demanded
charges amounting to Rs. 1,370/- for providing the documents towards
information, which was deposited on 20.01.2011.
It was contended that
since the information has been provided beyond the stipulated period of 30
days from the date of the application and therefore, the said amount of Rs.
1,370/- be refunded to him. Besides, he also prayed for imposition of penalty
on the respondent for the delay in providing the information sought.
Respondent present submitted a letter dated 03.06.2011 which
is addressed to the Commission and reads as under: “It is submitted that the application dated 30.11.2010 from Dr.
Sham Lal Thukral was received in this office on 01.12.2010. He
had sought information on 11 points and vide this office letter
No. RTI/6158 dated 06.12.2010, he was informed that
compilation of the information is likely to take some time.
D.R.D.A. has a sanctioned strength of 47 against which, only a
staff of 13 is posted. Despite acute shortage of staff, the
applicant was communicated vide this office letter no. 4765
dated 12.01.2011 to remit a sum of Rs. 1,370/- and the same
was deposited on 20.01.2011.
The complete information
thereafter has already been provided vide this office letter no.
7497 dated 07.02.2011.
Contd…….2/-
-:2:It is also brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Commission that
Dr. Sham Lal Thukral was caught red handed for destroying
female foetus in the Thukral Nursing Home, Bathinda which is
being run by his wife. Sh. Thukral was posted as SMO Talwandi
Sabo at that time.
A case No. 425 dated 05.08.2006 was
registered and an officer of this office was witness to the
incident. Due to this grudge, Dr. Thukral is harassing this office
without any valid reason and so far, a variety of information has
been sought by him pertaining to distant past, by making more
than 15 applications wherein no public interest was involved.
As the information sought has already been provided, it is
prayed that the present appeal may kindly be disposed of and
closed.”
Since Sh. Sardavinder Goyal was unable to answer further
queries regarding the information, he sought an adjournment to discuss the
matter with the complainant.
As the complainant has made a prayer for imposition of penalty
on the respondent, the Public Information Officer, office of the Additional
Deputy Commissioner (Development), Bathinda is directed to appear
personally in the next hearing.
For further proceedings, to come up on 17.08.2011 at 11.00
A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(94636-66155)
Sh. Balbir Aggarwal
General Secretary, Punjab and Haryana,
Babe Ke Gurudwara,
Sector 53,
Chandigarh
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Municipal Corporation, Zone ‘C’,
Near Mata Rani Chowk,
Ludhiana.
CC- 3797/2010
Order
Present:
…Complainant
…Respondent
Complainant Sh. Balbir Aggarwal in person.
For the respondent: S/Sh. A.K. Singla, S.E.; H.S. Khosa, XEN,
Harish Bhagat, L.A. (97800-39499) and Ashok Lal Verma,
Supdt. Health.
In the earlier hearing dated 11.05.2011, it was recorded: “Though complete information has since been provided to the
complainant, he laments that he was made to deposit a sum of
Rs. 50/- towards cost of 25 pages and the information provided
is spread over only on 9 pages. Thus he submitted that he has
been overcharged. Complainant prays for award of
compensation and imposition of penalty on the respondent PIO
for the delay caused in providing the information.
Respondents present submitted that the reply to the show cause
notice from Sh. H.S. Khosa, Executive Engineer-PIO shall
definitely be submitted before the next date of hearing.”
Today, written submissions in response to the show cause
notice have been received from the respondent.
Sh. Balbir Aggarwal submits that the amount charged for
providing the documents towards information has not been refunded so far.
Sh. Harish Bhagat, APIO Hqrs. present stated that if the photocopies of the
relevant receipts are provided by the complainant, the said amount shall be
refunded immediately. Accordingly, complainant is advised to act accordingly
and get the amount refunded from the respondent.
Sh. Bhagat is directed to provide a list of various officers who
remained posted as APIOs / PIOs during the pendency of the present case,
so that in case of need, the penalty clause could be implemented.
Sh. Bhagat, however, informed the Commission that the order
Contd…….2/-
-:2:for reinstatement of the Commissioner - Sh. A.S. Sekhon is likely to be
received in a day or two and sought adjournment till such time, which is
granted; and the matter is posted to 17.08.2011 in the Chamber for further
proceedings.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(94636-66155)
Sh. Balbir Aggarwal
General Secretary, Punjab and Haryana,
Babe Ke Gurudwara,
Sector 53,
Chandigarh
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Municipal Corporation, Zone ‘C’,
Near Mata Rani Chowk,
Ludhiana.
CC- 3799/2010
Order
Present:
…Complainant
…Respondent
Complainant Sh. Balbir Aggarwal in person.
For the respondent: S/Sh. A.K. Singla, S.E.; H.S. Khosa, XEN,
Harish Bhagat, L.A. (97800-39499) and Ashok Lal Verma,
Supdt. Health.
Oral as well as written submissions of both the parties along
with documents annexed thereto have been taken on record.
For pronouncement of the order, to come up on 17.08.2011 at
11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(94636-66155)
Sh. Balbir Aggarwal
General Secretary, Punjab and Haryana,
Babe Ke Gurudwara,
Sector 53,
Chandigarh
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Municipal Corporation, Zone ‘C’,
Near Mata Rani Chowk,
Ludhiana.
CC- 3803/2010
Order
Present:
…Complainant
…Respondent
For the respondent: S/Sh. A.K. Singla, S.E.; H.S. Khosa, XEN,
Harish Bhagat, L.A. (97800-39499) and Ashok Lal Verma,
Supdt. Health.
Oral as well as written submissions of both the parties along
with documents annexed thereto have been taken on record.
For pronouncement of the order, to come up on 17.08.2011 at
11.00 A.M. in the Chamber.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
(98728-15451)
Sh. Rupinder Singh Khalsa
s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh
village Jalaleana,
Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot
… Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer
O/o Block Development & Panchayat Officer,
Kotkapura
…Respondent
CC- 972/11
Order
Present:
For the complainant: Sh. Labh Singh (98147-73299)
For the respondent: S/Sh. Chhater Pal Singh Brar, BDPO along
with Tara Chand, A.E. and Jagdish Kumar, Panchayat Secretary
(90418-65260)
Vide communication
submitted as under: -
dated
10.06.2011,
the
complainant
“That most of the records pertaining to the Gram Panchayat,
Village Jalaleana, Block Kotkapura was provided to me during
the hearing on 17.05.2011. Further, photocopies of the various
resolutions passed and the muster-rolls from 2006 to 2011 have
also been received. Besides, a copy of the FIR reporting loss of
the records is not received so far.”
Today, Sh. Labh Singh has appeared on behalf of the
complainant.
Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Panchayat Secretary submitted that a copy
of the FIR No. 236 dated 16.10.2006 registered at P.S. Sadar, Faridkot has
since been provided to the complainant. He further submitted that in case of
any other requirement, the complainant can visit their office and get the same.
With this, complete information as per the original application
stands provided.
Seeing the merits of the case, it is hereby closed and disposed
of.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Kuldeep Singh Khaira,
C/o Vigilant Citizens’ Forum,
# 3344, Chet Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana-141003
… Complainant
Versus
Public Information Officer
O/o Block Development & Panchayat Officer,
Kotkapura (Pb.)
…Respondent
CC- 58/2011
Order
When this case last came up for hearing on 12.05.2011, BDPOs
namely Sh. Balkar Singh and Sh. Chhaterpal Singh Brar along with Sh. Tara
Chand, A.E. appeared on behalf of the respondent while no appearance was
made on behalf of the complainant. Submissions made by the respondents
were taken on record and the matter was posted to date i.e. 05.07.2011 for
pronouncement of the order.
In the present case, Sh. Kuldeep Khaira, the complainant, vide
application dated 15.11.2010, had sought duly dated, certified & legible copies
of the Utilisation Certificates along with supporting documents in respect of
Gram Panchayat, village Birh Sikhan Wala.
Briefly, the case set up by the complainant is that since no
response had been received from the respondent, the instant complaint had
been filed with the Commission, on 03.01.2011. Apart from the information,
the complainant had also prayed for award of compensation to him and
imposition of penalty on the respondent, pleading indifference to the RTI Act
on the part of the respondent.
Upon notice, in the first hearing dated 16.02.2011, complainant
did not come present while Sh. Tara Chand, Asstt. Engineer had appeared on
behalf of the respondent. However, a communication dated 15.02.2011 had
been received from the complainant, wherein it was asserted: “1.
That the respondent did not bother to supply any
information so far, as per the request made by the
complainant vide RTI application dated 15.11.2010.
2.
That there is likelihood that the respondent PIO either
sends the “remaining information” by post just a day or two
before the hearing, or brings the information in the
Commission to handover the same during the hearing, or
come empty-handed with some lame excuse. In either case,
the complainant shall require some time to scrutinize the
information supplied and seek adjournment. In these
circumstances, my presence in the Commission shall not
be very essential.
Contd……2/-
-:2:It is therefore humbly prayed that my personal
presence in the commission may kindly be dispensed with
this time, this letter be taken into consideration and case be
heard
on
merits
with
an
opportunity
to
file
objection/reaction to anything provided by the respondent
PIO, It is humbly prayed not to dispose of the case without
giving me an opportunity of being heard.
Relief for the direction to the PIO for complete
information free of cost, compensation as well as
imposition of penalty on the respondent PIO hereby
reiterated.”
During the proceedings in the first hearing on 16.02.2011, a
letter dated 11.02.2011 was submitted by the respondent, stating: “The complainant sought Grant Utilisation Certificates regarding
Gram Panchayat, Birh Sikhan wala, Block Kotkapura.
The
same was sent to him by Sh. Chhatarpal Singh Brar, the
then Block Development & Panchayat Officer, vide letter no.
4348 dated 21.12.2010. It is pertinent to mention here that for
the grants received, the executing agency is Gram Panchayat
itself; only they spend the amount of grants and issue utilization
certificates thereafter. The entire records of Gram Panchayat
including the utilization of the grants received, are with the
Sarpanch / Panchayat Secretary.
Particulars of letter numbers and dates detailing the expenses
out of the grants received have also been provided to the
complainant within the prescribed time limit as per the proforma
received. Yet another set of the same has been sent to him
after obtaining the same from the Gram Panchayat.”
I am quoting below two letters and a verbal statement made by
the complainant regarding the communication dated 21.12.2010 from the
respondent:

It is observed that in a later communication dated
08.03.2011, the complainant disputed the plea of the
respondent regarding the letter dated 21.12.2010 and
stated that it pertained to another case.

In the subsequent communication dated 06.04.2011,
complainant stated that the respondent had provided
incomplete information vide letter no. 4348 dated
21.12.2010 in response to the RTI application dated
04.10.2010 which is also pending before the Commission
in AC 16 of 2011.

In his written submissions dated 11.05.2011, he stated
Contd……3/-
-:3:that he had received a letter no. 1138 dated 29.04.2011
from BDPO Kotkapura vide which he has given a false
statement before the Commission that information had
been supplied through letter no. 4348 dated 21.12.2010.
In the next hearing dated 07.04.2011, Sh. Kuldeep Khaira
appeared while Sh. Chhaterpal Singh, BDPO and Sh. Tara Chand, Asstt.
Engineer put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. During the
proceedings, the complainant admitted that complete information, as per his
application dated 15.11.2010, stood provided by the respondent vide letter
dated 11.02.2011. In the order dated 07.04.2011, it was recorded: “Complainant submits that complete information has been
provided to him on 11.02.2011, as per original application dated
15.11.2010. He further submits that the information was
provided to him only after the notice of hearing dated
14.01.2011 was received by the respondent.”
Thus complete satisfactory information as per the application
dated 15.11.2010 stands provided on 11.02.2011 as accepted by the
complainant. Upon exclusion of the statutory period of 30 days prescribed
under the Act, apparently there is a delay of less than two months. Since the
complainant prayed for award of compensation and imposition of penalty on
the respondent, a show cause notice was issued to Sh. Balkar Singh, BDPO.
The matter was then posted to 12.05.2011 when again the complainant did
not attend the hearing while on behalf of the respondent, Sh. Balkar Singh,
Sh. Chhaterpal Singh and Sh. Tara Chand came present. Reply to the show
cause notice dated 10.05.2011 was tendered by Sh. Balkar Singh which was
taken on record, apart from other submissions made on behalf of the
respondents; and for pronouncement of the order, the case was posted to
date i.e. 05.07.2011.
In his reply to the show-cause notice, Sh. Balkar Singh has
submitted as under: “That grant relating to village under Rural Development and
Panchayat Department, Punjab are released in favour of the
Gram Panchayat of the village.
Sarpanch / Panchayat
Secretary of village Gram Panchayat is required to submit the
utilisation certificate to the office of BDPO for onward
submission to the State Govt. / Department concerned. The
technical guidance and supervision is done by the Engineering
Wing of Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab
i.e. J.E. A.E., S.D.O., XEN of the Department. Panchayat
Secretary of the Gram Panchayat is designated PIO under the
RTI Act and appellate authority is Block Development and
Panchayat Officer of the concerned Block. Sh. Kuldeep Singh
Khaira was required to seek information by moving an
application to the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat who
Contd……4/-
-:4:is custodian of record pertaining to Gram Panchayat’s grants
received and utilised. The complainant has chosen wrong forum
O/o BDPO. However, Sh. Chhatarpal Singh Brar, the then
BDPO Kotkapura provided the requisite information under his
signature prepared by AE Sh. Tara Chand vide his letter no.
3512 dated 21.10.2010 in the format supplied by the
complainant in his application.
In the meanwhile, the
complainant preferred an appeal against the above letter no.
3512 dated 21.10.2010. Again the concerned Asstt. Engineer
Sh. Tara Chand got prepared the required information for
appellant / complainant from Gram Panchayat / BDPO office
record. This information was supplied under the signature of the
then BDPO Sh. Chhaterpal Singh Brar, vide his office letter no.
4348 dated 21.12.2010.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant
filed second appeal before this Hon’ble Commission on
03.01.2011 against the above letter no. 4348 dated 21.12.2010.
The Hon’ble Commission issued notice under the RTI Act, 2005
which was received by BDPO office on 28.01.2011.”
Upon careful examination of the documents placed on record by
both the parties, it is evident that complete information as per the application
dated 15.11.2010 already stands provided to the complainant on 11.02.2011
as stated / admitted by him and recorded in the order dated 07.04.2011. It is,
however, significant to note that vide communication dated 29.04.2011,
respondent had brought to the notice of the Commission that the original
application dated 15.11.2010 was, in fact, received in their office under
Receipt No. 2019 on 01.12.2010.
After going through the submissions made by both the parties as
also upon careful consideration of the documents placed on the file, this court
is of the view that the communication dated 21.12.2010 attracts benefit of
doubt and the same is not considered in favour of the either party.
Taking an overall view of the matter, a compensation amounting
to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) is awarded in favour of the
complainant for attending the hearings before the Commission for the
information. The amount of compensation is to be paid by the Public
Authority to the complainant against his acknowledgement and the
respondent shall ensure that the compliance of this order is communicated to
the Commission at the earliest.
The submissions made by the respondent are convincing and
do not suggest any deliberate or intentional delay on his part. Therefore, no
order as to imposition of any penalty.
Complete information as per the original
undisputedly, already stands provided to the complainant.
application,
Seeing the merits of the case, therefore, it is hereby closed and
disposed of.
Contd……5/-
-:5:Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Chandigarh
Dated: 05.07.2011
Sd/Mrs. Ravi Singh
State Information Commissioner