STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Manjit Singh S/o
Shri Gurtej Singh, President
Unemployed PTI Union 849,
Vill:Chouke, Tehsil: Phool,
District: Bathinda.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Distt. Education Officer,(SE),
Tarn Taran.
First Appellate Authority-cumO/o Distt. Education Officer,(SE),
Tarn Taran.
Respondent
Appeal Case No. 181 of 2014
Present:
Shri Satish Kumar, Authorized representative of the
appellant
Shri Manjit Singh;
None for respondent PIO.
ORDER:
Shri Manjit Singh, Appellant vide an RTI application dated 19.8.2013,
addressed to PIO, o/o District Education Officer(S.E) Taran Taran, sought
certain information on 6 points for the year 2012-13 pertaining to the selections
made for 849 posts of P.T.Is and certain other information pertaining to the
PTIs posted in the district.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority
i.e. D.E.O. Taran Taran, on 19.10.2013, under the provisions of Section 19(1) of
the RTI Act, 2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second
appeal on 2.1.2014 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the act ibid, and
accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 26.2.2014.
On the last date of hearing on 26.2.14, from a perusal of the case file it
was revealed that certain information had already been provided by the PIO
cum Dy DEO (SE), Taran Taran to the appellant vide letter, dated 7.10.13.
However, the appellant stated that the provided information was totally
incomplete as no photo copies of online format of C-DAC, photo copies of
10+2 detailed marks cards and professional degrees of the selected PTIs have
been supplied to him. As such the PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE), Taran Taran was
directed to ensure that point-wise complete information is supplied to the
appellant under registered post free of cost within a period of 10 days from today
with a copy of the same to the Commission for its record. It was further made
clear that failing to provide information by PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE), Tarn Taran to
the appellant shall attract penalty provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,
2005 against him. He was further directed to attend the Commission on the next
fixed date with one spare set of provided information and the case was
adjourned to 14.3.2014 for further proceedings.
On the last date of hearing on 14.3.2014, , it was noted that certain
information had already been provided by the PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE), Taran
Taran vide letter dated 7.10.13. However, the applicant had stated that the
provided information was incomplete as photo copies of online format of CDAC, photo copies of 10+2 detailed marks cards and professional degrees of
the selected PTIs posted in the district of Taran Taran has not been supplied to
him. As such the PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE), Taran Taran was directed to provide
point-wise complete information to the appellant under registered post free of
cost within a period of 10 days from failing which penalty provisions of Section
20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 had to be invoked against him. During hearing of the
case, Shri Iqbal Singh, Clerk o/o DEO (SE) Taran Taran stated that the post of
Dy. DEO (SE) is lying vacant and as such he sought 10 days time for providing
the information to the appellant.
Shri Satindervir Singh, DEO (SE), Tarn Taran was afforded last
opportunity to provide the remaining information to the appellant, as mentioned
above, within a period of 7 days from the last fixed date, under registered cover.
He was directed to appear before the Commission personally today with one
spare set of provided information. The case was adjourned to 7.4.2014 for
further proceedings.
Shri Satvinderbir Singh, respondent PIO cum Distt. Education Officer (SE)
Tarn Taran telephonically informed that though the information on all points
which was available in his office record, was provided to the appellant vide letter
dated 7.10.2013. But now in compliance with the order dated 14.3.2014 of the
Commission, the remaining information i.e. on line format of C-Dac, photo
copies of 10+2 detailed marks certificates and the photocopies of the
professional degrees of the selected PTIs posted in the district of Taran Taran,
has also been supplied to the appellant under registered cover, after having the
same from the respective Principals/Headmasters.
Shri Manjit Singh also confirmed telephonically of his having receipt of
remaining information. Since the complete information in this case stands
supplied, the case is disposed of/closed..
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
Commissioner
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information
Copy to:
Shri Satvinderbir Singh,
District Education Officer, (SE),
Tarn Taran.
for compliance.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
Commissioner
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Ram Shaminder Singh,
s/o S.Karnail Singh ` s/o Lal singh,
# 2/207, Gali No. 05
Sarabha Nagar, Ward No. 03,
Malout, Distt. Sr. Mukatsar Sahib.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Tehsildar, Sri Mukatsar Sahib.
First Appellate Authority,
o/o Deputy Commissioner,
Sri Mukatsar Sahib.
Respondent
AC No. 459 of 2014
Present:
Shri Karnail Singh father of appellant.
Shri Narinder Kumar, PIO cum Naib Tehsildar Bariwala holding an
additional charge of Naib Tehsildar Sri Mukatsar Sahib. .
ORDER:
Shri Ram Shaminder Singh Appellant vide an RTI application dated
21.8.13 , addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Sri Mukatsar Sahib sought
certain information on 6 points.
During the hearing of this case on 19.3.2014, it was noted that the said
RTI Application was further transferred by the PIO cum Addl. D. C to PIO cum
Tehsildar, Sri Mukatsar Sahib vide letter dated 30.8.13 and PIO cum Tehsildar
Sri Mukatsar Sahib further transferred the said RTI Application to Naib Tehsildar,
Sri Kukatsar Sahib vide letter dated 25.9.13 for supplying the information
directly to the appellant.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority
vide letter dated 4.10.13 under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act,
2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second appeal on
22.1.14 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act,2005 and
accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 19.3.2014.
On the last date of hearing, Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Patwari appearing on
behalf of Shri Narinder Kumar, PIO cum Naib Tehsildar had handed over a set
of documents to the appellant containing the information. However, the
appellant after perusal of the same expressed his dis-satisfaction with the same.
He further stated that the provided information was not point wise at all. Hence
no inference could be made out. He said same was incomplete and misleading.
As such, Shri Narinder Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Sri Mukatsar Sahib was afforded
one last opportunity to provide to the appellant point wise correct duly attested
information supported by the documents, free of cost within a period of 4 days
from the last fixed date under registered cover.
He was further directed to appear personally before the Commission on
the next fixed date with one spare set of provided information for the perusal of
the same by the Commission.
It was further made clear that his failing to supply to the appellant the
correct and complete attested information this time also could attract the
provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act ibid, without affording any further
opportunity. The case was adjourned to 7.4.2014 for further hearing.
During the hearing of this case today, it is noted that the requisite
information has been supplied to the appellant, vide letter No. 246, dated
4.4.2014, by Shri Narinder Kumar, PIO cum Naib Tehsidar, Bariwal holding an
additional charge of Naib Tehsildar Sri Mukatsar Sahib. He also handed over one
set of provided information to the commission for its perusal and record.
Since the complete information stands supplied, the case is disposed of
and closed.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
Commissioner.
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Parbodh Chander Bali,
16- Shiv Nagar, Batala,
Amritsar-143001
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Municipal Corporation,
Ludhiana.
First Appellate Authority,
o/o Municipal Corporation,
Ludhiana
Respondent
AC No. 2700 of 2013
Present:
None for the appellant.
Shri Arun Khanna, Building Inspector o/o M.C.Ludhiana, for
the
respondent PIO.
ORDER:
The facts of the case are that Shri Parbodh Chander Bali filed RTI
Application dated 4.8.12 addressed to the PIO o/o Commissioner, M.C.
Ludhiana seeking information on 11 points pertaining to the directions given in
the judgment delivered on 2.8.2005 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
CWP no. 496 and 570 of 2002 in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar
Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. UOI. Since no information was provided to the
complainant, the Commission in exercise of powers under the provisions of
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 5000/(Rs. Five thousand only) on Shri Raj Kumar, MTP, MC, Ludhiana and relegated
the matter to the First Appellate Authority cum Commissioner, MC, Ludhiana on
9.5.13 for deciding the First Appeal of the appellant as per provisions contained
in the RTI Acf. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions given by the
Commission, FAA cum Commissioner, MC, Ludhiana passed a detailed
speaking order dated 19.11.13 and subsequently, Shri Bali approached the
Commission in 2nd appeal under provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act ibid on
10.12.13 against the order dated 19.11.13 passed by the Commissioner cum
FAA, M.C. Ludhiana and accordingly a notice of hearing was issued to the
parties for 17.2.2014, for hearing of this case, before the Bench of Shri Satinder
Pal Singh, SIC.
The Appellant Shri Parbodh Chander Bali requested that his case may
be transferred to this bench. Accordingly notice of hearing was issued to the
parties for 19.3.2014. It is noted that while issuing notice a typographic error
occurred in writing the Appeal case no. 459/14 whereas the correct no. is A C
No. 2700/2013.
On the last date of hearing on 19.3.2014, it was noted that none had
appeared on behalf of the appellant and a communication dated 19.3.14 had
been received in the Commission from Shri Bali, Appellant wherein it had been
mentioned that the respondent PIO cum ATP had not supplied him the complete
information on point no. 11 about compounding fee collected to the tune of Rs.
16,56,995/-, in challan no. 2918. As such, PIO cum ATP, M.C , Ludhiana was
directed to supply the correct complete and duly attested information within 4
days from the next fixed date under registered cover.
He was further directed to appear before the Commission on the next
fixed date with one spare set of supplied information. It was further made clear
that this time also his failing to supply to the appellant the correct and complete
attested information would attract the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act ibid
without affording any further opportunity. The case was adjourned to 7.4.14 for
further hearing.
During the hearing of this case today, it is noted that a communication
dated 4.4.2014 from Shri Parbodh Chander Bali, appellant have been received
in the commission on 7.4.2014, wherein in para no. 2, it has been mentioned that
on 4.4.2014 Shri Rajinder Sharma, MTP cum APIO , Municipal Corporation
Ludhiana has personally delivered him the complete information of Point No. 11
regarding compounding fee amounting to Rs. 16,56,995/- collected vide challan
no. 2918. He has further mentioned that he has received the complete
information in this case.
In view of the facts mentioned above, the case is disposed of and
closed.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04. 2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Manjit Singh S/o
Shri Gurtej Singh, President
Unemployed PTI Union 849,
Vill:Chouke, Tehsil: Phool,
District: Bathinda
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Distt. Education Officer,
(SE)
Bathinda.
First Appellate Authority-cumO/o Distt. Education Officer,
(SE) Bathinda.
Respondent
Appeal Case No. 176 of 2014
Present:
Shri Satish Kumar, authorized rep. of the appellant.
Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta, Dy. DEO and Shri Ram Dass Singh,
AO o/o DEO (SE), Bathinda.
ORDER:
Shri Manjit Singh, Appellant vide an RTI application dated 19.8.2013,
addressed to PIO, o/o District Education Officer(S.E) Bathinda, sought certain
information on 6 points for the year 2012-13 pertaining to the selections made
for 849 posts of P.T.Is and certain other information pertaining to the PTIs
posted in the district.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority i.e. D.E.O. Bathinda, on 19.10.2013, under the provisions of Section
19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in
second appeal on 2.1.2014 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the act ibid,
and accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 26.2.2014.
During hearing of this case on 26.2.14, it was noted that requisite
information has been supplied by the PIO cum Dy DEO (SE), Bathinda to the
appellant vide letter, dated 18.11.13. However, the appellant stated that the
provided information is incomplete as no photo copies of online format of CDAC, photo copies of 10+2 detailed marks cards and professional degrees of
the selected PTIs have been supplied to him. As such the PIO cum Dy. DEO
(SE), Bathinda was directed to ensure that remaining information is supplied to
the appellant under registered post free of cost within a period of 10 days from
today with a copy of the same to the Commission for its record. It was further
made clear that failing to provide remaining information by PIO cum Dy. DEO
(SE), Bathinda shall attract the penalty provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act, 2005 against him. He was further directed to attend the Commission on
the next date of hearing with one spare set of provided information and the case
was adjourned to 14.3.2014.
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14.3.2014, it was learnt that Shri Ram
Dass Singh, AO o/o DEO (SE), Bathinda was the PIO of the office of DEO,
Bathinda prior to the appointment of Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta, Dy. DEO on
17.10.13. As such a show cause notice was issued to both Shri Ram Dass
Singh, AO and Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta, Dy. DEO (SE) o/o DEO (SE),
Bathinda to explain as to why penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day subject to the
maximum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) be not imposed
upon him for not providing the information willfully, intentionally and without any
reasonable cause till date to the appellant though he filed an RTI Application on
19.8..2013.
They were afforded an opportunity of being heard on the next fixed date
failing which it would be presumed that they had nothing to say and the ex-parte
proceedings would be initiated against them.
They were further directed to provide to the appellant point-wise
complete, correct and duly attested information free of cost under registered
cover within a period of 7 days failing which further proceedings which include
initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Section 20 (2) of the
Act ibid would be considered to be taken.
They were further directed to attend the Commission personally on the
next fixed date with written submissions, Action Taken Report and records. The
case was adjourned to 7.4.14. for further proceedings.
During the hearing of this case today, Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta, Dy,.
DEO stated that the remaining information which though the appellant was
expected to seek from the respective Principals, since the same was not in their
office record, has also been supplied to the appellant on 21.3.14 under
registered cover after obtaining the same from the respective
Principals/Headmasters. He also produced before the Commission his joining
letter dated14.3.14 to establish that he has recently been posted as Dy. DEO
(SE), Bathinda.
Similarly, Shri Ram Dass Singh, AO o/o DEO (SE) Bathinda stated that
the available information in their office was supplied to the appellant vide letter
dated
18.11.13 and it was categorically mentioned that the demanded
documents pertaining to Sr. no. 43 to 55 are with the respective heads of
Schools and can be had from them.
After hearing the respondents, the Commission considers it appropriate to
drop the show cause notices issued to Shri Ram Dass Singh, AO and Shri
Krishan Kumar Gupta, Dy. DEO (SE) o/o DEO (SE), Bathinda and accordingly
the same are dropped.
Now since the complete information in this case stands supplied, the case
is disposed of and closed.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04. 2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Anil Kumar Verma,
# 5168, Shanker Garden Colony,
Nakodar, Jalandhar-144040.
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Distt. Education Officer,
(SE), Jalandhar.
Respondent
Complaint Case No. 260 of 2014
Present: None for the complainant.
Shri Harinder Pal, Dy. DEO for the respondent.
ORDER:
Shri Anil Kumar Verma , complainant vide an RTI application dated
17.11.13 addressed to PIO o/o DEO (SE), Jalandhar sought 4 points
information pertaining to the inspection of Sr. High School Dharoli Khurd
conducted by Shri Surinder Pal Virdi, Principal, Sr. Sec. School Dharoli Kalan/
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed a complaint with the Commission, received in it
on 9.1.14.
Since the perusal of the file revealed that there were sufficient grounds
which were required to be looked into by the Commission in terms of Section
18(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, notice of hearing was issued to both the parties for
14.03.2014
During the hearing of this case on 14.03.2014 , it was noted that neither
the respondent PIO had put in his appearance in the commission, nor
information had been supplied to the complainant till date though the
Complainant had filed RTI Application with the respondent PIO cum Dy. DEO
(SE), Jalandhar on 17.11.13.
It was further noted that total lackadaisical
approach had been adopted by the respondent PIO in providing information to
the appellant. As such a show cause notice was issued to Shri Harinder Pal
Singh, PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE) Jalandhar to explain as to why penalty @ Rs.
250/- per day subject to the maximum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
thousand only) be not imposed upon him for not providing the information
willfully, intentionally and without any reasonable cause till date to the appellant
though he filed an RTI Application on 17.11..2013.
He was afforded an opportunity of being heard on the fixed date failing
which it would be presumed that he had nothing to say and the ex-parte
proceedings would be initiated against him.
He was further directed to provide to the appellant point-wise complete,
correct and duly attested information free of cost under registered cover within a
period of 7 days failing which further proceedings which include initiation of
disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Section 20 (2) of the Act ibid
would be considered to be taken.
He was further directed to attend the Commission personally on the
next fixed date with written submissions, Action Taken Report and records. He
would also produce a copy of the notification on the fixed date in the
Commission vide which PIOs/APIOs have been appointed. The case was
adjourned to 07.04.2014 for further proceedings.
During the hearing of this case today, it is noted that a communication
dated 7.4.14 has been received in the Commission from the complainant, Shri
Anil Kumar Verma, wherein in para `1, he has mentioned that he has received
the requisite information on 25.3.14 and remaining information on 27.3.14 by
hand.
Now since the complete information in this case stands provided, the case
is disposed of and in view of the detailed oral submissions made by Shri
Harinder Pal, PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE), show cause notice issued to him is
dropped.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Malkiat Singh s/o
Late Shri Gurdev Singh Sandhu,
Vill. Halluwal, P.O. Jhanjuwal,
Distt. Hoshiarpur.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o District Education Officer (S)
Hoshiarpur.
First Appellate Authority,
Circle Education Officer,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
Respondent
AC No. 441 of 2014
Present: None for Appellant.
Shri Darshan Singh, PIO cum Dy DEO, Hoshiarpur.
ORDER:
Shri Malkiat Singh, Appellant vide an RTI application dated 26.10.12,
addressed to PIO cum DEO (SE) Hoshiarpur sought the action taken report
pertaining to the enquiry conducted by the Circle Education Officer as per
directions of the Director General School Education, Punjab in Nov./December,
2009 in which he was also summoned to tender statement alongwith Shri
Narinder Singh.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority
vide letter dated 15.7.13 under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI
Act,2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second appeal on
20.1.14 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act,2005 and
accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 19.3.2014.
During the hearing of this case on 19.3.2014, Shri Narinder Singh, Jr.
Asstt. appearing on behalf of PIO cum DEO (SE), supplies to the Commission a
copy of letter dated 18.11.13 wherein it had been mentioned that the information
demanded by him is not available in the office record. However, the appellant
stated before the Commission that he has confirmed information that the copy of
the action taken report was received in the office of DEO (SE) but the same has
not been supplied to him despite his demand through an RTI Application.
Therefore, Shri Darshan Singh, PIO cum Dy. DEO (SE) was directed to
supply to the appellant attested copy of the action taken report as demanded by
the appellant within a period of 4 days from today free of cost under registered
cover. He was further directed to appear before the Commission with one set of
attested copy of the action taken report supplied to the appellant. The case was
adjourned to 7.4.14 for further hearing.
During hearing of this case today, Shri Darshan Singh, Dy. DEO (SE),
Hoshiarpur stated that the demanded information has now been sent to the
appellant vide letter no. A-4/2014/5544-45, dated 26.3.14 under registered cover.
Now, since the complete information in this case stands supplied to the
appellant, no cause of action survives further and the case is disposed of
accordingly.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Om Parkash,
#5729/A, Sector 38 West,
Chandigarh-160014
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Secretary,
Pb. School Education Board,
Sector 62, Mohali.
Respondent
A C 1210 of 2014
Present:
Appellant in person.
Ms. Pavitterpal Kaur, PIO cum Jt. Secretary, PSEB, Punjab
ORDER:
Shri Om Parkash , complainant vide an RTI application dated 5.11.13
addressed to PIO o/o PSEB, Mohali sought certain information in the enclosed
format no. 1, 2 and 3 regarding allotment of books, job security, paper security
and papers issued to the Presses for the printing of books.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the appellant filed first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority vide letter dated 5.12.13 and still for having no response he
approached the Commission in second Appeal under the provisions of Section
19(3) of the Act ibid on 14.1.14, and accordingly a notice of hearing was issued
to both the parties for 18.3.2014.
During the hearing of this case on 18.03.2014
Shri Virender
Madaan,
Supdt.. appearing on behalf of Mrs. Pavitterpal Kaur, PIO cum Jt. Secretary,
PSEB, Punjab states that the requisite information has already been sent to the
appellant vide letter no. 473/PSEB/2014 dated 11.3.14. A perusal of the same
reveals that the information has been denied to the appellant under provisions of
section 8(d)(1) being 3rd party information and relating to the trade secret.
However, the appellant stated that he has not demanded copy of the enquiry
report and had asked for a very simple information pertaining to the printing
material during the duration of Ex-Chairman and certain officials for which an
enquiry on his complaint is being conducted at the Govt. level. Further, a perusal
of the enclosed format revealed that the demanded information did not fall under
the category of either 3rd party or related to trade secret. In an era of
transparency such information should be made available in public domain.
As such, Ms. Pavitterpal Kaur, PIO cum Jt. Secretary, PSEB, Punjab
was directed to provide to the appellant duly attested information in the formats
enclosed by the appellant within a period of 10 days from today free of cost
under registered cover. She was further directed to appear before the
Commission with one spare set of provided information for the perusal of the
same by the Commission. The case was adjourned to 7.4.14 for further
proceedings.
During the hearing of this case today,. Ms. Pavitterpal Kaur, PIO cum Jt.
Secretary, PSEB, Punjab stated that the demanded information is under the
control of Shri Harcharan Singh Chunny being
Dy. Director Publication,
Punjab. As such in view of statement made by PIO, Shri Harcharan Singh
Chunny is also treated as deemed PIO under Section 4(5)(4) of the RTI Act,
2005. Therefore, Shri Harcharan Singh Chunny shall be equally responsible for
the supply of correct, complete and attested information to the appellant.
In view of the request made by Ms. Pavitterpal Kaur PIO cum Jt.
Secretary, PSEB, Punjab, the case is adjourned to 16.4.14.
It is also made clear that failing to provide the information this time, shall
attract the penalty provisions of
Section 20(1) of the said Act against
Respondent PIO and deemed PIO.
Adjourned to 16.4.14 at 11.00 AM for further hearing.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
Copy to:;
Ms. Pavitterpal Kaur, PIO
cum Jt. Secretary, PSEB, Punjab, Mohali.
Shri Harcharan Singh Chunny
Dy. Director Publication, PSEB Punjab
Mohali.
For necessary compliance.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Parabhjeet Singh, S/o
Shri Baljit Singh, # B-13/149,
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Batala,
District: Gurdaspur.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o SCERT, Punjab, Block-2,
6th Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Sector-62,
Ajitgarh (Mohali).
First Appellate Authority-cumO/o SCERT, Punjab, Block-2,
6th Floor, Vidya Bhawan, Sector-62,
Ajitgarh (Mohali).
Respondent
Appeal Case No.217 of 2014
Present: None for the appellant.
Mrs. Madhu Sharma, Supdt. for respondent.
ORDER:
Shri Parabhjeet Singh, Appellant vide an RTI application dated
27.9.2013, addressed to PIO, o/o S.C.E.R.T. Punjab, sought certain information
on 6 points pertaining to PSTET examination -2012 held on 9.6.13.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority vide letter dated 28.10.13 under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the
RTI Act,2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second appeal
on 1.1.2014 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act ibid and
accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 4.3.2014.
During the hearing of this case on 4.3.14, Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.
Asstt. stated that the requisite information has been sent to the appellant vide
letter dated 3.1.14.
However, after the perusal of this letter, it has been
noticed that the provided information is totally incorrect. It was thus noted that
no correct information has been sent to the appellant by Mrs. Madhu Sharma,
Respondent PIO o/o Director, SCERT, Punjab, Chandigarh, though the
appellant made RTI Application on 23.9.13 and failing to get any information he
even filed Ist appeal with the First Apellate Authority on 28.10.13 and even
failing to get any response from the First Appellate Authority, he had to
approach the Commission in Second Appeal under the provisions of Section
19(3) of the Act ibid, on 1.1.14. It was further noted that despite issuance of
notice of hearing on 6.2.14 by the Commission, incomplete information has
been sent to the appellant vide letter dated 3.1.14 by the respondent PIO.
It was thus noted that a total lackadaisical approach has been adopted
both by Mrs. Madhu Sharma, PIO cum Supdt. o/o Director, SCERT, Punjab,
Chandigarh as well as Shri Roshan Lal Sood, Director, SCERT, Punjab,
Mohali in providing the correct information to the appellant. As such, a show
cause notice was issued to Ms. Madhu Sharma, PIO cum, Supdt.. o/o
Director, SCERT, Punjab to explain in writing by furnishing a duly sworn
affidavit as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 be not
imposed on her till the information is furnished.
In addition to the written reply, Mrs. Madhu Sharma is also hereby given
an opportunity u/s 20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the
imposition of such penalty on the next date of hearing. She may take note
that in case she does not file her written reply and does not avail her of the
opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that she
has nothing to state and the Commission shall proceed to take further
proceedings against her ex parte. In case she fails to file written submissions
to show cause notice issued to her further steps including initiation of
disciplinary proceedings could be taken, as per relevant provisions of the RTI
Act, 2005.
Shri Roshan Lal Sood, Director, SCERT, Punjab was also directed to
explain in writing as to why the matter against him be not referred to
Administrative Secretary for initiating disciplinary proceedings as he did not
respond to the appellant in respect of First appeal dated 28.10.13 filed before
him.
His attention was also invited to the judgment dated 12.12.2011 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Chief Information Commr. And
another Vs. State of Manipur and another (Civil Appeal no. 10787 to 10788)
of 2011 wherein it has been held in para 36 that “legislature does not waste
words or say anything in vain or for no purpose” and similarly in para 35 it has
further been held that,”no statute should be interpreted in such a manner as to
render a part of it redundant or surplusage.” It has further been held in para
29 as under:“where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner
it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance
are necessarily forbidden.”
As such since Ist Appellate Authority had failed to perform his statutory
obligation by not deciding Ist appeal, his explanation/written reply should
reach the Commission on or before next date of hearing.
In the meantime, respondent PIO was directed to provide the appellant
point-wise complete specific information according to his RTI application, duly
attested, free of cost, by registered post, under the cover of a forwarding letter
within a period of 7 days from the date fixed and to present a copy of the
relevant postal receipt along with one set of the information so provided, on the
next date of hearing, before the Commission, for its perusal and records.
Both Ms. Madhu Sharma, PIO and Shri Roshan Lal, Director, SCERT,
Punjab were directed to appear before the Commission on the next date of
hearing and the case was adjourned to 18.3.2014 for further proceedings.
Mrs. Madhu Sharma, PIO cum Supdt.. stated that no information could
be supplied to the appellant as the examination PSTET-2012 was conducted by
NYCA Communication Ltd., NOIDA.
Shri Akbar Ali Khan, Coordinator of NYCA stated that an Expert
Committee had been constituted for giving the justification of the answers
regarding which certain queries had been made by the appellant vide RTI
Application dated 27.9.13. As such, he sought 3-4 days time for providing the
point wise answer to Mrs. Madhu Sharma, PIO for onward transmission of the
reply to the RTI Application dated 27.9.13 filed by the appellant.
In view of these facts, the appeal case was adjourned to 7.4.14 . for
further hearing.
During hearing of this case today, Ms. Madhu Sharma, PIO cum Supdt.
Diet Branch o/o SCERT, Mohali stated that the requisite point wise and
correct information has now been sent to the appellant vide Memo. No. 9/5313 Diet(3), dated 3.4.14 under registered post. It is further noted that the
appellant did not attend Commission even on the single date of hearing nor
sent his authorized representative. No communication has even been made
by him ever since his filing the appeal with the Commission on 1.1.14.
As such, in view of the detailed oral submissions made by Ms. Madhu
Sharma, Supdt. Diet Branch o/o SCERT, Mohali show cause notice issue to
her is dropped and since the complete information stands supplied to the
appellant, the case is disposed of.
Chandigarh.
Dated:07.04.2014
(B.C. Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Jaswinder Singh
s/o Sh. Joginder Singh,
Tehsil Bharhi Tehsil Khamano,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Director Public Instructions,
(S.E.) Pb. PSEB Complex, Sector 62,
Mohali.
Respondent
CC No. 475 of 2014
Present: None for complainant.
Shri Jaspal Singh, Sr. Asstt. , o/o DPI, Punjab.
ORDER:
Shri Jaswinder Singh,
complainant vide an RTI application dated
7.11.13 addressed to PIO o/o DPI, Punjab, Mohali sought certain information
pertaining to 60 posts of Ex-servicemen (General) filled in 849 PTI posts in
2006.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed a complaint with the Commission, received in it
on 30.1.14.
Since the perusal of the file revealed that there were sufficient grounds
which were required to be looked into by the Commission in terms of Section
18(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, notice of hearing was issued to both the parties for
20.03.2014
.
During hearing of this case on 20.03.2014, it was noted that Shri
Jaswinder Singh, complainant informed the Commission telephonically that his
both cases i.e. CC NO. 475/14 and 476/14 may be adjourned to some other
date as he was unable to attend the Commission today due to illness of his
father. Similarly Shri Jaswinder Singh, Asstt. Director also requested for at least
one week’s time to prepare the information demanded by the complainant.
In view of these facts, the case was adjourned to 7.4.2014 for further
hearing.
Accordingly, Shri Jaswinder Singh, Asstt. Director was directed to appear
before the Commission on 7.4.14 with written submissions, action taken report
and records pertaining to the RTI application filed by the complainant.
During the hearing of this case today, Shri Jaspal Singh, Sr. Asstt. stated
that the requisite information has already been supplied to the complainant vide
Memo. No. 2/237-2012 Estt-III (3), dated 24.3.14.
Shri Jaswinder Singh,
complainant also confirmed on phone of having received the complete
information to his satisfaction on 24.3.14.
Since the complete information stands supplied to the complainant, the
case is disposed of
Chandigarh.
Dated:07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Jaswinder Singh
s/o Sh. Joginder Singh,
Tehsil Bharhi Tehsil Khamano,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Director Public Instructions,
(S.E.) Pb. PSEB Complex, Sector 62,
Mohali.
Present:
Respondent
CC No. 476 of 2014
None for complainant.
Shri Jaspal Singh, Sr. Asstt. o/o DPI Punjab,.
ORDER:
Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainant vide an RTI application dated
7.11.13 addressed to PIO o/o DPI (SE), Punjab sought certain information
pertaining to the SC (MB) candidates selected as PTIs for 849 posts during the
year 2012 as per the combined merit list and revised merit list.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed a complaint with the Commission, received in it
on 30.1.14.
Since the perusal of the file revealed that there were sufficient grounds
which were required to be looked into by the Commission in terms of Section
18(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, notice of hearing was issued to both the parties for
20.03.2014
On the last date of hearing i.e. 20.3.2014, it was noted that Shri
Jaswinder Singh, complainant informed the Commission telephonically that his
both cases i.e. CC NO. 475/14 and 476/14 may be adjourned to some other
date as he was unable to attend the Commission today due to illness of his
father. Similarly Shri Jaswinder Singh, Asstt. Director also requested for at least
one week’s time to prepare the information demanded by the complainant.
In view of these facts, the case was adjourned to 7.4.2014 at 11.00 A.M.
Accordingly, Shri Jaswinder Singh, Asstt. Director was directed to appear
before the Commission on 7.4.14 with written submissions, action taken report
and records pertaining to the RTI application filed by the complainant.
During the hearing of this case today, Shri Jaspal Singh, Sr. Asstt. stated
that the requisite information has already been supplied to the complainant vide
Memo. No. 2/237-2012 Estt-III (3), dated 24.3.14.
Shri Jaswinder Singh,
complainant also confirmed on phone of having received the complete
information to his satisfaction on 24.3.14.
Since the complete information stands supplied to the complainant, the
case is disposed of
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Sukhdeep Singh
s/o Late Sh. Surjeet Singh,
VPO Jhandeana Sharki,
Tehsil & Distt.Moga,.
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions
(S.E.) Punjab, PSEB Building,
Sector 62, Mohali
Respondent
CC No. 456 of 2014
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Jarnail Singh, PIO cum Asstt. Director o/o DPI (SE) Punjab.
ORDER:
Shri Sukhdeep Singh, complainant vide an RTI application dated
12.11.13 addressed to PIO O/O DPI (SE), PSEB Complex, Sector 62, Mohali
sought list of joined candidates, category and cadre wise with reference to the
advertisement no. 3442 Master cadre post on 7.5.11.
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed a complaint with the Commission, received in it
on 28.1.14.
Since the perusal of the file revealed that there were sufficient grounds
which were required to be looked into by the Commission in terms of Section
18(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, notice of hearing was issued to both the parties for
20.03.2014.
During the hearing of this case on 20.03.2014, a perusal of the case filed
revealed that response to the complainant has been sent vide letter dated
24.12.13 in respect of his RTI Application dated 12.11.13.
However, the
complainant stated that he had demanded the list of the candidates who have
finally joined their post in the respective places of their posting. However, the
same has not been supplied to him. A perusal of the case file also revealed that
the demanded information hac not been sent to the complainant as per his
requirement. As such, before the penalty provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act, 2005 were considered against Shri Jarnail Singh, PIO cum Asstt. Director
(E-2), he was directed to appear before the Commission with the written
submissions, Action Taken Report and records on the next date of hearing. The
case was adjourned to 7.4.14 for further proceedings.
During hearing of this case today, Shri Jarnail Singh, PIO cum Asstt.
Director handed over to the complainant a complete list of joined candidates,
category and cadre wise with reference to advertisement no. 3442 of Master
cadre posts of 7.5.2011 to the complainant in the Commission itself.
Now since the complete information stands supplied to the complainant,
the case is disposed of.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Lekh Raj,
H.No. 40-A, Type II,
PGI Campus, Sector 12,
Chandigarh.
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Block Development & Panchayats officer,
Talwara, Distt. Hoshiarpur-144216.
Present:
Respondent
Complaint Case No.300 of 2014
Shri Lekh Raj Complainant in person.
Ms. Rajinder Kaur, PIO cum BDPO, Talwara, Hoshiarpur
And Shri Yudhvir Singh, earlier PIO..
ORDER:
Shri Lekh Rah, complainant vide an RTI application dated 25.4.2013,
addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, sought 4 points information
pertaining to the land measuring 100 sq.yd in Khasra No. 736M(old)/ Khasra No.
789 (new).which was allotted to Shri Bishan Dass vide letter no. 65-786 dated
30.1.1974 by the Deputy Commissioner Hoshiarpur on the basis of resolution
passed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Kartolhi (V.P.O. Ramgarh Sikri)
Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section
7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed a complaint with the Commission, received in it
on 13.1.2014.
Since the perusal of the file revealed that there were sufficient grounds
which were required to be looked into by the Commission in terms of Section
18(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, notice of hearing was issued to both the parties for
19.3.2014.
On the last date of hearing I.E. 19.3.2014, it was observed that the PIO
o/o Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur vide letter no. 167/A, dated 5.5.2013,
transferred this RTI application to the Distt Development & Panchayats Officer,
Hoshiarpur, for providing the information directly to the complainant, the copy of
which was also endorsed to the complainant. The Distt Development &
Panchayats Officer, Hoshiarpur further transferred the RTI application of the
complainant vide letter No.1805, dated 10.5.2013 to the Block Development &
Panchayats Officer, Talwara under the provisions of section 6(3), of the act ibid
for providing information to the complainant and copy was also endorsed to
complainant for seeking the information directly from the BDPO, Talwara.
It was further observed that neither any information had been provided to
the complainant nor any one appeared before the commission on behalf of
respondent PIO cum BDPO Talwara.
It was also noted that RTI application for seeking the information was filed
on 25.4.2013, which was duly transferred to the BDPO Talwara. Vide letter No.
1804/DAC-1Br.dated 10.5.2013 and reminder was also issued to the BDPO
Talwara vide letter 3313/DAC.1 dated 30.8.2013 by the DDPO Hoshiarpur for
providing the information to the complainant within one week. However, BDPO
Talwara didn’t care a least for providing information in this case.
As such this lackadaisical attitude on the part of the PIO cum BDPOs
Talwara was viewed seriously being against the spirits of the RTI Act, 2005.
Therefore, the commission in exercise of its power under the provisions of
section 20(1) of the act ibid issues a show cause notice to Shri Yudhvir Singh
earlier BDPO, Talwara and Ms. Rajinder Kaur, present PIO cum BDPO
Talwara, Distt. Hoshiarpur , to explain in writing by furnishing self attested
affidavits as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 be not
imposed on them for not providing any information to the complainant as per
provisions contained in Section 7(1) of RTI Act,2005.
In addition to the written reply to be given in the shape of an affidavit, Shri
Yudhvir Singh earlier BDPO, Talwara and Ms. Rajinjder Kaur, present PIO cum
BDPO Talwara, Distt. Hoshiarpur, were also hereby given an opportunity u/s
20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty
on the next date fixed. He would take note that in case he did not file his written
reply and did not avail himself of the opportunity of personal hearing on the next
date fixed, it would be presumed that he had nothing to say and the Commission
would proceed to take further proceedings against him ex parte.
Shri Yudhvir Singh earlier BDPO, Talwara and Ms. Rajinder Kaur, present
PIO cum BDPO Talwara, Distt. Hoshiarpur were further directed to ensure their
personal presence on the next date fixed along with complete records, failing
which further steps including initiation of disciplinary proceedings would be taken,
as per relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
In the meantime, Shri Yudhvir Singh earlier BDPO, Talwara now BDPO
Bamial, Distt. Pathankot and Ms. Ranjit Kaur, present PIO cum BDPO Talwara,
Distt. Hoshiarpur were directed to provide the applicant point-wise specific
information, duly attested, free of cost, by registered post, in accordance with his
RTI application dated 25.4.2013 and present a photocopy of the relevant postal
receipt before the Commission on the next date fixed along with a copy of the
information so provided. The case was adjourned to 7.4.2014 for further
proceedings.
During hearing of this case today, Shri Lekh Raj, complainant stated that
he has received the complete information now vide letter no. Spl.-2, dated 2.4.14
under registered cover.
Shri Yudhvir Singh earlier BDPO, Talwara now BDPO Bamial, Distt.
Pathankot and Ms. Ranjit Kaur, present PIO cum BDPO Talwara, Distt.
Hoshiarpur stated before the Commission that the delay in providing the
information was due to the rush of work on account of General Elections of the
Lok Sabha and not willful or intentional delay in any manner was caused.
In view of the detailed oral submissions made by the two officers, the
show cause notices issued to them are dropped.
Now since the complete information in this case stands supplied to the
satisfaction of the complainant, the case is disposed of and closed.
Chandigarh.
Dated: 07.04.2014
(B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner.