STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Surinderjit Singh,
# 71, Chhoti Baradari-II,
Garha Road, Jalandhar.
…Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
First Appellate Authority,
Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh
Circle Education Officer,
Jalandhar Circle,
Jalandhar (Pb)
… Respondents
AC No. 700 of 2012
Present:
None for the appellant.
Shri Madan Lal, Establishment Officer along with Sh.Gurjit Singh,
Supdt. O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh - on behalf of the
Respondents.
ORDER
Briefly, Appellant vide his RTI application dated 8.1.12, addressed to
PIO, Office of DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh sought certain information in
respect of recruitment of Clerks/Typists during 1986-87 through Departmental
Selection Committee along with copy of Rules & regulations of recruitment and
names of the successful candidates, date of type test and date of interview.
Failing to get any response within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) of
the RTI Act, 2005, Appellant filed first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh on 13.3.12, and preferred 2nd
appeal with the Commission on 14.5.12 and accordingly, a notice of hearing
was issued to the parties for 2.8.12.
On 2.8.12, when it was observed that no information had been supplied
to the Appellant, the PIO-cum-Registrar Education, Sh.Madan Lal, O/o DPI(SE),
Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh was directed to supply complete, correct,
attested information to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 8.1.12
free of cost under registered cover. He was also directed to explain in writing
by furnishing self attested affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in
supplying the information and also to explain as to why the provisions of
Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not invoked
against him for willfully delaying and denying the information and case was
adjourned to to-day for further hearing.
To-day during hearing, Sh.Madan Lal, Establishment Officer, O/o DPI,
Pb. stated that the information has been sent to the appellant vide letter
No.2829-30 dated 24.8.12. He also delivered a copy of the letter written by
Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar Circle, wherein it has been written that it is
not possible to provide the information as the record is more than 25 years
old, it would be better to contact Smt.Gulshanraj Kaur, Ex-Circle Education
Officer-cum-Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee. Sh.Madan Lal,
Establishment Officer, O/o DPI, Pb. further stated that the information is to be
provided by the Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
The plea taken by Sh.Madan Lal, Establishment Officer, O/o DPI, Pb. is
not tenable.
In case the information was to be provided by the Circle
Education Officer, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, then the original RTI
application of the appellant should have been transferred by the RespondentPIO to him within a period of five days as provided under Section 6(3) of the
RTI Act, 2005. Respondent-PIO, Sh.Madan Lal, Establishment Officer, O/o DPI,
Pb. has taken the RTI application of the appellant in a very casual and neglect
manner.
Commission further observe that the PIOs of the office of DPI, Punjab
are habitual in making lame excuses in providing RTI information within 30 days
as provided under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the present case,
Commission observes that despite lapse of a period of more than seven months,
information has yet not been provided to the appellant.
i)
Therefore, Commission imposes penalty of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) upon the PIO – Sh.Madan Lal, Establishment Officer,
office of Director of Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, Sector 62,
Mohali, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, for the inordinate
delay caused in providing the information to the appellant.
This
amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is to be recovered
by the DPI(SE), PSEB Building, Sector 62, Mohali, from the salary of
Sh.Madan Lal, Estt. Officer and to be deposited in the State Treasury
under the relevant head, within a month’s time. An attested copy of
the challan receipt shall be presented before the Commission on the
next date of hearing;
ii)
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission
under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, a compensation to the
tune of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) is awarded to the
appellant Sh.Surinderjit Singh, which is payable to him by the Public
Authority i.e. Department of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh within a
period of one month in the shape of Bank draft through the Director
of Public Instructions, (Secondary Education), Punjab, Punjab School
Education Board Building, Sector-62, Mohali.
iii)
PIO, o/o Director of Public Instructions, (Secondary Education),
Punjab, Punjab School Education Board Building, Sector-62, Mohali
shall furnish photocopy of Bank Draft with forwarding letter under his
signatures as proof of compensation having paid to the appellant and
proof of penalty deducted from the salary of PIO-Sh.Madan Lal,
Establishment Officer, on the next date of hearing.
iv)
PIO-cum-Establishment Officer. O/o DPI (SE) Pb. is further directed
to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated
information to the appellant free of cost under registered cover
within a period of fifteen days without fail;
v)
PIO-cum-Establishment Officer. O/o DPI (SE) Pb. along with Circle
Education Officer, Jalandhar, shall be personally present in the
Commission on the next date of hearing with one spare copy of the
supplied information to the appellant for information and record of
the Commission.
vi)
DPI(SE), Punjab, who has not passed any order on Ist appeal of
appellant dated 13.3.12, though being a quasi-judicial authority in
this case, is directed to ensure that complete and correct
information is provided to the appellant, by concerned PIO within a
period as specified above.
Failing to ensure the providing of
information to the appellant in the capacity of Head of Department
and for passing no order in Ist appeal, action as required under law
shall also be recommended to be initiated against him.
Adjourned to 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM for compliance and further
hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Copy to:
I)
ii)
ii)
Sh. Kamal Garg, PCS,
Director of Public Instructions, (SE), Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building,
Sector-62, Mohali
Sh.Madan Lal, PIO-cum-EO,
Office of DPI(SE), PSEB Building,
Sector 62, Mohali.
Circle Education Officer;
Jalandhar Circle,
Jalandhar
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Manpreet Singh,
s/o Shri Gurdev Singh,
Mohalla Chhimbian,
Noormahal, Distt. Jalandhar-144039
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal Secretary Education.
(Schools), Punjab Mini Secretariat,
Sector 9-A, Chandigarh.
First Appellate Authority,
Principal Secretary Education.
(Schools), Punjab Mini Secretariat,
Sector 9-A, Chandigarh
Sh.Savan Iqbal Singh,
Nodal Officer (RTI),
O/o Director of Public Instructions, Punjab,
(Secondary Education)
Chandigarh.
AC No. 719
Present:
…
Respondents
of 2012
Shri Manpreet Singh, Appellant, in person.
Sh.Balbir Singh, Supdt. O/o Secretary to Govt. of Punjab,
Department of Education, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh along with
Sh.Surinder Singh, SA;
Sh.Baljit Singh, SA O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh - on behalf of
the Respondent-PIO.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 2.8.12, Sh.Baljit Singh, SA appearing
on behalf of Respondent-PIO delivered a copy of letter dated 26.7.12 in AC
No.730 of 12 wherein information on point no.4 & 5 being the same has also
been supplied to the appellant.
At this, the appellant had stated that no
information on point no.1,2,3,6 & 7 of his RTI application dated 24.2.12 had
been supplied to him so far.
The PIO-cum-Dy.Director(School Administration) Smt.Pankaj Sharma,
O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh, was, therefore, directed to supply the
remaining information to the appellant free of cost within a period of ten days
under registered cover.
She was also directed to explain in
writing by
furnishing an affidavit as to why the provisions of Section 20(1)(2) and Section
19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not invoked against her for willfully delaying
and denying the information and for knowingly supplying incomplete and
misleading information to the appellant and case was adjourned to today for
further hearing.
Sh.Baljit Singh, SA O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Chandigarh appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-PIO, states that Mrs.Pankaj Sharma has gone to attend a
COCP case pending before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. However, he
delivers written explanation submitted by Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director
(School Administration), which is taken on record.
He further states that
complete RTI information as was available with the office of DPI(SE) has
already been supplied to the appellant Sh.Manpreet Singh vide registered letter
dated 8.8.12 and in view of detailed subnmisions made by Respondent-PIO,
Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, in her affidavit, Show Cause Notice issued to her under the
penalty provisions of RTI Act, 2005 is dropped.
Sh.Manpreet Singh, Appellant states that he is fully satisfied with the
information provided by the Respondent-PIO. He further states that he has
received complete information from Respondent-PIO O/o DPI(SE) Pb., except
information on point no.1, for which he shall file fresh RTI application with the
office of Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Punjab, as the same
information is available with the office of Secretary, Department of Education,
Pb.
In view of the above, the case is disposed of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Surinder Singh Mehrok,
Vill. Rukha Mungla, P.O. Patel Nagar,
Distt. Ferozepur-152001
… Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o District Food Supplies &
Consumer Affairs Controller,
Ferozepur
First Appellate Authority,
Director Food & Civil Supplies &
Consumer Affairs, Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
AC No. 728
Present:
… Respondents
of 2012
Shri Surinder Singh Mehrok, Appellant, in person.
Shri Manohar Lal Nagpal, DFSC, Ferozepur along with Sh.Avnish
Manchanda, Inspector, on behalf of the Respondent.
ORDER
Facts in brief are that Appellant vide his RTI application dated 1.3.12,
addressed to PIO, Office of DFSC Ferozepur sought certain information on
seven points. Failing to get any response within 30 days as mandated under
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority-cum-DFSC, Ferozepur vide his application dated 29.3.12, but of no
avail, therefore, he preferred 2nd appeal with the Commission, received in it on
17.5.12 and accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 2.8.12,
when appellant had stated that he had not yet received the complete
information.
He also stated that information on point no.1 & 2 has been
supplied to him and partial information has been provided to him on point no.3
and no information has been supplied on point no.4 to 7.
In view of the above, it was observed that the PIO-cum-DFSC Ferozepur
had supplied incomplete or misleading information to the appellant.
Therefore, Sh.M.L.Nagpal, PIO-cum-DFSC Ferozepur was again directed
to supply complete, correct and attested information to the appellant as per
his RTI application dated 1.3.12 free of cost under registered cover within one
week. He was also directed to explain in writing by furnishing self attested
affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in supplying the information and also
to clarify as to why the provisions of Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of
the RTI Act, 2005 be not invoked against him for willfully delaying and denying
the information and for the loss and other detriments suffered by the appellant
and case was adjourned to today for further hearing.
To-day, during hearing, Sh.M.L.Nagpal, PIO-cum-DFSC Ferozepur states
that complete remaining information has been provided to the appellant vide
letter dated 24.8.12. He also tenders written reply in the shape of affidavit
mentioning that delay has been caused as the information had to be collected
from the field staff relating to record of 12 depot holders. In the affidavit, he
has also brought out that he is retiring from service w.e.f. 31.8.12 and
submitted unconditional apology for the delay caused in supplying the
information to the appellant. In view of the submissions made by the PIO that
he is retiring and had tendered unconditional apology, Show Cause Notice
issued to him is though dropped, but as in response to RTI application dated
1.3.12, of the appellant, complete information has been provided to him on
24.8.12, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission under Section
19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/(Rupees Three Thousand Only) is awarded to the appellant Sh.Surinder Singh
Mehrok, which is payable to him by the Public Authority i.e. Department of
Food Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Punjab, Chandigarh within a period of one
month through
Bank draft through the Director Food & Civil supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Punjab, Jeevan Deep Building, Sector-17, Chandigarh, for
loss and other detriments suffered by the appellant by causing him an
unnecessary and unwarranted harassment in obtaining information.
Respondent-PIO, shall furnish photocopy of Bank Draft with forwarding
letter under his signatures as proof of compensation having paid to the
appellant, on the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM for compliance.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
Copy to:
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Director, Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Punjab,
Jeevan Deep Building,
Sector 17, Chandigarh
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Harpreet Singh
s/o Shri Kulbir Singh,
r/o H.No. 355, Yassian Road,
(G.T.Roadside),
Ludhiana-141008
… Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o District Education Officer,
(secondary Education),
Ludhiana.
… Respondent
CC No. 1354 of 2012
Present:
Shri Harpreet Singh, - not present.
Sh.Charanjit Singh, Dy.DEO(S), Ludhiana along with Mr.Tarun
Madaan, Clerk, O/o DEO, Ludhiana on behalf of the
Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 2.8.12, none was present on behalf of
DEO(SE), Ludhiana. The PIO, O/o District Education Officer(SE), Ludhiana was
directed to supply point-wise, correct, complete, attested information to the
appellant free of cost within a period of 15 days under registered cover and
case was adjourned to to-day for further hearing.
Sh.Charanjit Singh, Dy.DEO(S), Ludhiana, appearing on behalf of
respondent, states that the complete, correct and point-wise, duly attested,
requisite RTI information has been supplied vide letter No.335-336 dated
24.8.12 and registered letter containing the information has been sent on
27.8.12 to the Complainant. He has also placed on record a copy of the
information provided to the Complainant for information of the Commission.
The information provided to the Complainant by the Respondent-PIO has
been perused. The same has been found to be satisfactory.
In view of the above, the case is disposed of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Jagtar Singh s/o Shri Kaur Singh,
c/o Prem Chand ‘Beehle wale’,
B-XI/2720, Aman Street No.-3,
Near M.C.Office, Ram Bagh Road,
Barnala-148101.
Compainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Sports, Punjab,
SCO 116-117, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh
…Respondent
CC No. 213 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Balbir Singh, Supdt. O/o Secretary Education, Education-I
Branch, Mini Secretariat, Sector 9 Chandigarh along with
Sh.Surinder Singh, SA;
Smt.Surinder Kaur, SA O/o Director, Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh
- on behalf of the Respondents.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 2.8.12,
PIO-cum-Supdt.,
O/o
Principal Secretary, School Education, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh was present
in person.
During hearing he stated that he had only taken over as
Superintendent on 4.7.12 after the retirement of earlier PIO-cum-Supdt, O/o
Principal Secretary, School Education, Punjab, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh.
He further stated that since the RTI application was not traceable in the office,
therefore, he had collected the same from the Commission's office and shall
supply the point-wise correct, complete and attested information to the
Complainant within a period of ten days by all means. The request made by
the PIO was acceded to and accordingly, he was directed to supply complete,
correct, attested information as per the RTI application of the Complainant
dated 25.11.11 free of cost under registered cover within a period of ten days
and to be present in person on the next date of hearing with one spare copy of
supplied information and case was adjourned to to-day for further hearing.
Shri Balbir Singh, PIO-cum-Supdt., O/o Principal Secretary, School
Education, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh, states that sought information
containing 11 pages has been supplied to the Complainant vide letter No.5467
dated 3.8.12.
Commission observes that while supplying the information to the
Complainant vide letter dated 3.8.12, it has been mentioned that there is no
provision to answer the questions under the RTI Act.
Commission does not
agree with the plea taken by the Respondent-PIO.
i)
Since no information has been provided to the Complainant, Shri
Balbir Singh, PIO-cum-Supdt., O/o Principal Secretary, School
Education, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh, is afforded last opportunity
to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated
information to the complainant free of cost under registered cover
within a period of two days positively failing which the penalty
provisions under Section 20(1)(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be
imposed against the Respondent-PIO.
ii)
He will be personally present on the next date of hearing and shall
also explain reasons for delay in supplying information.
Adjourned to 30.8.12 at 11.00 AM for further hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
Copy to:
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Sh.Balbir Singh, Supdt.
O/o Secretary Education, Education-II Branch,
Mini Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh - for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Varinder Singh,
Shop No. 367, Akal Market,
Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, Pb.
…Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
…Respondent
CC No. 1390 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Dy.Director (Private Aided Schools) along
with Sh.Bhagwan Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab - on behalf of the
Respondent.
ORDER
1.
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 9.8.12, Mrs.Bhupinder Kaur
Sodhi, APIO-cum-Supdt. O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, appearing on behalf of the
respondent-PIO stated that the requisite information had been sent to the
Complainant vide letter dated 30.7.12.
The provided information to the
Complainant had been perused, and it was observed that the provided
information was highly incomplete and mis-leading.
Sh.J.P.Singh, Deputy
Director, Private Aided Schools, O/o DPI (SE), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh
was, therefore, directed to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly
authenticated information to the complainant free of cost under registered
cover within a period of seven days. He was also directed to explain in writing
by filing self attested affidavit the reasons of delay and as to why the
provisions of Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not
invoked against him for willfully delaying and denying the information and case
was adjourned to to-day for further hearing.
Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Dy.Director (Private Aided Schools), PIORespondent, tenders written reply in the shape of affidavit wherein it has been
stated that the requisite information had been provided to the Complainant
vide their office registered letter No.5/21-2012 dated 19.6.12 and letter No.
Audit-1/2012 dated 30.7.12.
Simultaneously, Complainant Varinder Singh has also given in writing
under his signatures that he has received the requisite RTI information from
office of DPI and is satisfied with the provided information.
In view of the submissions made by Respondent-PIO-Sh.J.P.Singh in the
affidavit given by him, the Show Cause notice issued under the provisions of
Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 is dropped and case
is disposed of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Sandip Kumar,
#1-173, Dhiman Street,
V & P O Babyal,
Ambala-133005
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Respondent
CC No. 1417 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Subhash Chawla, PIO-cum-Supdt. O/o DPI(S), Pb., along with
Sh.Gurmail Singh, (Services-I Branch), dealing assistant - on behalf
of the Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 9.8.12, Sh.Madan Lal, Establishment
Officer appearing on behalf of Respondent-PIO had stated that the Complainant
Sh. Sandip Kumar had sought personal information in respect of Mr.Manjit
Singh, Registrar, Sh.Varinder Jain, Clerk s/o Late Smt.Prem Lata Gupta,
Sh.Subhash Chander, Supdt Services-I.
The concerned persons had given in
writing not to provide their personal information to the Complainant. He had
also brought out that a dispute was going on of Mr.Varinder Jain, Clerk with his
father and his father was requisitioning information under the garb of different
names. He had further brought out that whosoever attend hearing before the
Commission, next time Complainant demands his information.
He had also
stated vide letter dated 27.8.12 that information sought in CC No. 1417 of 2012
is exactly the same as was sought in CC No.3429 dated 2011 with different
name. He had also quoted an instance of CC No.3429 of 2011 and produced a
copy of orders passed by the Division Bench consisting of Mr.Harinder Pal Singh
Mann and Mrs.Jaspal Kaur, State Information Commissioners wherein the
information on 15 points was sought under the name of Sh.Anil Kumar S/o
Sh.Asha Gir vide RTI application dated 22.9.2011 in respect of Mr.Ravindr Jain
and Manjit Singh. He had further brought out that, therefore, in that case it
was observed by the Commission that the information asked for by the
complainant related to third party and no public interest was involved in asking
for such information by the complainant. Moreover, the third party had denied
disclosing his information to the complainant.
As such, the Division Bench
observed that action of the respondent-department in not disclosing the
information of the third party to the complainant cannot be faulted with. The
Division Bench in CC No.3429 of 2011 also brought on record that
such
tendency of the complainants to settling a score out of a vendetta with their
opponents by means of RTI Act need to be curbed. The RTI Act is meant only
to bring transparency and accountability in the departments of Public Authority
and not to settle personal disputes of the parties.
Since the Complainant was not present on the last date of hearing and
despite clear-cut directions of the Commission that in the event of his failure
to be present on the next date of hearing, it shall be presumed that he has
nothing to say and the case shall be disposed of and closed. The Complainant
is not present to-day also.
In the present case, the Complainant has sought information on 21 points
relating to three employees, namely Mr.Manjit Singh, Registrar, Mr.Varinder
Jain, Clerk and Mr.Subhash Chand, Superintendent.
Perusal of information sought by the Complainant reveal that same is
highly voluminous in nature and attracts Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005, which
provides that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it
is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in
question. Last opportunity is, therefore, afforded to the Complainant to defend
his case either in person or through his representative so that specific
information as is available on record could be provided to him in public
interest, reluctance on his part in doing so, information sought by him could be
denied under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005.
PIO, O/O DPI, Sh.Subhash Chawla, Superintendent (Services-I) Branch,
shall also be present on the next date of hearing with written submissions that
what information in response to the RTI application dated 19.3.12 of the
Complainant can be provided to him on the basis of official record.
Adjourned to 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM for further hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
Copy to:
Sh.Subhash Chawla,
PIO-cum-Superintendent (Services-I) Branch,
O/o Director, Public Instructions, Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building,
Sector – 62, Mohali
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri E.D. Nathaniel,
Retd. Headmaster,
#2533, Sector 37-C,
Chandigarh..
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
sector 17, Chandigarh.
Respondent
CC No. 1425 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Dy.Director (Private Aided Schools) along
with Sh.Bhagwan Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab - on behalf of the
Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 9.8.12, Sh.Bhagwant Singh, Assistant
Director, Establishment-I Branch was directed to supply point-wise, complete,
correct and duly authenticated information to the complainant free of cost
under registered cover within a period of ten days and case was adjourned to
today for further hearing.
Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Dy.Director (Private Aided Schools) along with
Sh.Bhagwan Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-PIO have requested for grant of some more time on the ground
that they have recently shifted their office record from Chandigarh to their
new office in the building of Punjab School Education Board, Mohali.
In view of the above, last opportunity is afforded to respondent-PIO,
Sh.Bhagwan Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab and he is directed to supply point-
wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated information to the complainant
free of cost under registered cover within a period of three weeks positively.
To come up for further hearing on 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
Copy to:
Sh.Bhagwant Singh,
Assistant Director, Establishment-I Branch
O/o Director, Public Instructions, Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building,
Sector – 62,
Mohali
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Mandeep Singh
s/o S. Jaspal Singh, Adarsh Colony,
Street No.3, Sidhwan Bet Road,
Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana-142026.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
2.First Appellate Authority,
Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
Chandigarh
3. Chairman,
SCERT, Punjab,
SCO No.66-67,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh
Respondents
AC No. 584/12
Present:
of 2012
Shri Kapil Khanna, Advocate along with Sh.Jaspal Singh, father of
the appellant Sh.Mandeep Singh - on behalf of the Appellant.
i)
Mrs.Neelam Bhagat, Earlier Chairman-cum-Director, SCERT
Pb., Chandigarh
ii)
Sh.Gurjit Singh, Superintendent (Ministerial Education),
O/o DPI(SE), SCO 95-97, Sector 17 Chandigarh;
iii)
Sh.Satbir Singh, LA, O/o Director, SCERT, SCO 66-67, Sector
17-A, Chandigarh
- on behalf of respondents.
ORDER
Appellant vide RTI application dated 14.11.11, addressed to PIO, Office of
DPI(Secondary Education), sought the following information:
He applied for the post of Library Restorer vide Registration No.
50043842, Category: Ex-Serviceman, Dependant – SC(MB). He also
appeared for the second counseling on 9.7.11 and the file handed over to
Mrs.Raj Kumari, Scrutiny Officer for January 1, 2011 onwards.
By filing this application, the appellant wanted to know the status of his
application vide which he applied for the post of Library Restorer. Failing to get
the information as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he also
filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 30.12.11
and subsequently after sometime second appeal was filed with the Commission,
received in it on 23.4.11 and accordingly, notice of hearing was issued to the
parties for 3.7.12.
On 3.7.12, Sh.Gurjit Singh, Superintendent (Ministerial Education), O/o
DPI(SE), SCO 95-97, Sector 17 Chandigarh was directed to explain the reasons
for delay in providing the information and for the loss and other detriments
suffered by the appellant.
He was also directed to supply the requisite
information duly attested free of cost to the appellant within a period of ten
days. He was also directed to furnish self attested affidavit on the next date of
hearing justifying the delay in providing the information or for if the
information was not on record in his office and also as to why the provisions of
section 20 (1) (2) and 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 be not invoked against the
PIO/Public Authority. He was also directed to be present personally on the
next date of hearing.
Since Sh. Jaspal Singh Sr. Assistant appearing for DPI (SE), Pb.,
had
stated that this information was to be supplied by Director SCERT, therefore,
Ms. Neelam Bhagat, Director, SCERT, Departmental Selection Committee,
Punjab, SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh was directed to supply the
requisite information to the appellant if the same was available with her office
within a period of ten days. Shri Gurjit Singh Supdt. was directed to supply
copy of RTI application to the Director SCERT by hand. Ms. Neelam Bhagat,
Director, SCERT, Departmental Selection Committee, Punjab, SCO 66-67,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh was also directed to be personally present on the next
date of hearing.
After hearing both the parties, it was held that the RTI information
sought by the appellant was to be provided by Mrs.Neelam Bhagat, earlier
Chairman-cum-Director, SCERT, SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. She was,
therefore, directed to ensure to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly
authenticated information to the appellant free of cost under registered cover
within a period of ten days. It was made clear that in the event of failure on
her part to supply the sought information to the appellant, penalty provisions
under section 20 (1) (2) and 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 shall be invoked
against the PIO/Public Authority and case was adjourned to today for further
hearing.
Mrs.Neelam Bhagat, earlier Chairman-cum-Director, SCERT, appearing
along with Sh.Satbir Singh, Legal Assistant, SCERT, SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh, states that the requisite information has been provided to the
appellant.
Commission observes that despite directions given by the Commission,
the appellant has been provided with photocopies of two pages which are of no
relevance to appellant and status of his case, i.e. information sought in RTI
application has not yet been provided to the appellant.
In view of facts
therefore that Appellant has been caused to undue harassment and is still
without any information.
i)
In exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission under Section
19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, a compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) is awarded to the appellant
Sh.Mandeep Singh, for the loss and other detriments suffered by him,
which is payable to him by the Public Authority i.e. Department of
SCERT, Punjab, Chandigarh within a period of one month in the shape
of Bank draft through the Director S.C.E.R.T, Punjab, SCO 66-67,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
ii)
PIO, O/o Director, SCERT Punjab, SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh, shall furnish photocopy of Bank Draft with forwarding
letter under his signatures as proof of compensation having paid to
the appellant.
iii)
Decision on Invocation of penalty provisions against Mrs.Neelam
Bhagat, then PIO-cum-Director, SCERT, under section 20 (1) (2) shall
be considered later.
iv)
In the meanwhile, Chairman-cum-Director, SCERT, is afforded last
opportunity to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly
authenticated information to the appellant free of cost under
registered cover within a period of ten days positively. She shall be
present on the next date of hearing with one spare copy of the
supplied information to the appellant for information and record of
the Commission.
Adjourned to 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM for further proceedings.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated:27.8.12.
Copy to:
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
i)
Mrs.Neelam Bhagat,
Earlier Chairman, SCERT,
Now Dy.Director (Recruitment),
Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan,
SCO 104-106, Sector 34-A, 2nd Floor,
Chandigarh.
ii)
Mrs.Surjit Kaur,
Chairman,
SCERT,
SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh.
iii)
Chairman-cum Director- SCERT Punjab,
SCO no. 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh,
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Ms. Sanyukta Kumari,
81-D, Kitchlu Nagar,
Ludhiana.
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o District Education Officer,
(Secondary Education),
Ludhiana.
Respondent
CC No. 1447 of 2012
Present:
Shri R.L.Aggarwal, husband of Ms.Sanyukta Kumari, Complainant.
Shri Charanjit Singh, Dy.DEO(S), Ludhiana along with Sh.Anil
Kumar, Clerk, O/o DEO(S), Ludhiana - on behalf of the
Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on
14.8.12, Sh.Anil Kumar, Clerk
appearing on behalf of the Respondent-PIO delivered a copy of letter dated
11.8.12 addressed to the Complainant vide which the information had been
provided to her. Perusal of the information revealed that the information on
point no.1 was correct whereas information on point no.2 and 3 was
incomplete, incorrect and misleading.
Therefore, Sh.Charanjit Singh, PIO-cum-Dy.DEO(SE), Ludhiana was
directed to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated
information to the complainant free of cost under registered cover within a
period of ten days. He was also directed to explain in writing by furnishing self
attested affidavit justifying the delay, and thus pleading as to why the
provisions of Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not
invoked against him for willfully delaying and denying the information by
supplying incomplete and misleading information to the Complainant.
To-day, Sh. Charanjit Singh, Dy.DEO(S), Ludhiana, tenders two
affidavits, duly attested by the Notary Public, dated 27.8.12. In one of the
affidavits, he has stated that the sought RTI information, which was available
in the office, has already been supplied to the Complainant. He has further
mentioned that neither letter shown by the Complainant at serial no.3,
Dispatch No.3204 dated 30.5.2008, nor any correspondence relating to this
letter is available in the office of DEO(S), Ludhiana,
In view of the above submission made by the Respondent-PIO by filing
affidavit, Commission observe that the RTI information as was available with
the Respondent PIO stands provided to the Complainant.
Secondly, considering the averments made by the Respondent-PIO in his
second affidavit, explaining the reasons for not invoking the penalty provisions
under Section 20(1)(2) of the RTI Act, the show cause notice issued to the
Respondent-PIO is dropped.
In view of the above facts, the case is disposed of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
.
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Smt. Harjinder Kaur,
w/o Shri Prathamjeet Singh,
c/o Major Singh (Master)
Near Civil Hospital Baba Bakala,
Distt. Amritsar.-143202.
Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education), Punjab,
Chandigarh.
Respondent
CC No. 1452 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Baljit Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE) Punjab, - on behalf of the
Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14.8.12, Respondent-PIO, Mrs.Pankaj
Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary Education), O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, Pb. School
Education Building, Top Floor, Sector 62, Mohali, was offered last opportunity
and she was directed to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly
authenticated information to the complainant free of cost under registered
cover within a period of ten days. She was also directed to explain in writing
by furnishing self attested affidavit justifying, with pleadings as to why the
provisions of Section 20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not
invoked against her for willfully delaying and denying the information to the
Complainant and for loss and other detriments suffered by her in seeking
information in respect of her RTI application dated 30.12.2011. It was further
directed that Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary Education), O/o
DPI(SE), Punjab, Punjab School Education Building, Top Floor, Sector 62, Mohali
shall be personally present on the next date of hearing, i.e. today.
Sh.Baljit Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE) Punjab, appearing on behalf of
Respondent-PIO states that Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary
Education), O/o DPI(SE), Punjab is busy in Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in connection with a COCP filed against DPI(SE), therefore, she had
requested for exemption for appearance in person. Mr.Baljit Singh, SA, further
states the requisite RTI information has been supplied to the Complainant vide
registered letter No.6/248-12 dated 23.8.12. He has also produced one copy of
the information supplied to the Complainant for information of the
Commission.
Perusal of the information provided to the Complainant by the
Respondent-PIO, reveal that the Complainant has been provided with the merit
list of Math Male General Category candidates who were selected as Teachers
and secured 66.984% marks or more, whereas Smt. Harjinder Kaur,
Complainant vide her RTI application dated 30.12.2011, addressed to
DPI (SE), Pb., Chandigarh, sought copy of merit list of Mathematic
teachers selected in general category, applied through service
provider in the year 2008, who secured more than 55% marks. Even
the Complainant Mrs.Harjinder Kaur, Complainant has informed the Commission
on telephone that she has been provided with mis-leading information.
In view of the above, Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary
Education), O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, is directed to supply point-wise, complete,
correct and duly authenticated information to the complainant free of cost
under registered cover within a period of ten days strictly as per RTI
application of the Complainant Mrs.Harjinder Kaur.
Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary Education), O/o DPI(SE),
Punjab, shall be personally present on the next date of hearing with a copy of
information supplied to the Complainant for information and record of the
Commission.
The issue regarding imposition of penalty, in respect of show cause
notice issued to Mrs.Pankaj Sharma, Dy.Director (Secondary Education), O/o
DPI(SE), Punjab, shall be considered later.
Adjourned to 13.9.12 at 11.00 AM for further hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
Copy to:
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
Mrs.Pankaj Sharma,
PIO-cum-Dy.Director (Secondary Education),
O/o DPI(SE), Punjab,
Punjab School Education Building,
Top Floor, Sector 62,
Mohali
- for compliance.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Dr. Mohit Diwan,
Kothi No. 14, Bagh Colony,
Anandpur Sahib,
Distt. Ropar.
Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director of Public Instructions,
(Secondary Education) Punjab,
Sector 17, Chandigarh
Respondents
AC No. 764 of 2012
Present:
None for the Complainant.
Sh.Jatinder Pal Singh, Dy.Director (Private Aided Schools) along
with Sh.Bhagwan Singh, SA, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab - on behalf of the
Respondents.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14.8.12, Sh.Ashok Kumar, SA, O/o
DPI(SE) Punjab, Mohali appearing on behalf of Sh.Bhagwant Singh, Assistant
Director(Secondary Education), School Administration-I Branch, O/o DPI(SE)
delivered a copy of letter dated 13.8.12 in the Commission, a copy of which
had been addressed to the appellant, in which it had been written that
information on point no.1 to 4 cannot be provided as the same was in the form
of question and information on serial no.5 cannot be provided the same being
more than 20 years older.
Therefore, Sh.Bhagwant Singh, Assistant Director(Secondary Education),
School Administration-I Branch, O/o DPI(SE) Punjab, Mohali was directed to
supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated information to the
appellant free of cost under registered cover within a period of seven days. He
was further directed to explain in writing by furnishing self attested affidavit
justifying the delay and pleading therein as to why the provisions of Section
20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not invoked against him
for willfully delaying and denying the information to the appellant and for the
loss and other detriments suffered by the appellant in respect of his RTI
application dated 20.1.12
Sh.Bhagwant Singh, Assistant Director(Secondary Education), School
Administration-I Branch, O/o DPI(SE) Punjab, tenders reply in the shape of
affidavit wherein it has been stated that the information delivered on 13.8.12
to the appellant was at the level of Mr.Ashok Kumar, dealing assistant under
the signature of Superintendent Estt-1, O/o DPI(SE), Punjab without any
approval.
He further states that now information has been sent to the
appellant vide letter dated 25.8.12.
After perusal, Commission observes that still the information is
incomplete. It is further observed that Appellant vide his RTI application dated
20.1.12 addressed to Secretary to the Govt. of Punjab, Department of School
Education, Chandigarh sought certain information on five points regarding
promotion given to Sh.Harcharan Dass, S/o Sh.Jagdish Singh, Lecturer
Mathematic, now Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Masewal,
District Ropar, retrospectively w.e.f. 6.11.1991. The said RTI application of
the appellant was transferred by the Education-II Branch to the DPI(SE) Punjab,
Chandigarh under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide letter No.1576 dated
22.2.12 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 FAA-cum-Secretary (School Education),
Punjab vide letter dated 1.3.12 and preferred 2nd appeal with the Commission,
received in it on 29.5.12.
Commission observes that despite lapse of a period of more than eight
months, complete information has yet not been provided to the appellant.
i)
Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Commission
under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, a compensation to the
tune of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) is awarded to the
appellant Sh.Mohit Diwan, for the financial loss and other detriments
suffered by the appellant, which is payable to him by the Public
Authority i.e. Department of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh within a
period of one month through
Bank draft through the Director of
Public Instructions, (Secondary Education), Punjab, Punjab School
Education Board Building, Sector-62, Mohali.
ii)
PIO-cum-Assistant
Director(Secondary
Education),
School
Administration-I Branch, Sh.Bhagwant Singh, O/o DPI(SE), o/o
Director of Public Instructions, (Secondary Education), Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building, Sector-62, Mohali shall
furnish photocopy of Bank Draft with forwarding letter under his
signatures as proof of compensation having paid to the appellant, on
the next date of hearing.
iii)
He is also directed to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly
authenticated information to the complainant free of cost under
registered cover within a period of ten days. Decision on invocation
of penalty provisions under Section 20(1)(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall
be considered to be taken against PIO later for persistent delay in
providing the information.
To come up on 3.10.12 at 11.00 AM for compliance & further
hearing.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
Copy to:
( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner
i)
Sh. Kamal Garg, PCS,
Director of Public Instructions, (SE), Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building,
Sector-62,
Mohali
ii)
Sh.Bhagwant Singh,
Assistant Director(Secondary Education),
School Administration-I Branch,
O/o DPI(SE) Punjab,
Punjab School Education Board Building,
Top Floor,
Sector-62,
Mohali
-
for compliance
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Kulwant Singh s/o Shri Jaswant Singh,
c/o # 204, Ward no.4, Khalsa College Road,
Morinda, Ropar-110101.
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director of Public Instructions
(School Education) Punjab,
Chandigarh.
CC No. 1465 of 2012
Present:
Complainant
Respondent
Mr.Tirath Singh on behalf of Mr.Kulwant Singh, Complainant.
Mrs.Surjit Kaur, Dy.Director (Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE),
Punjab, along with Sh.Jaspal Singh, SA, and Sh.Savan Iqbal Singh,
Nodal Officer(RTI) - on behalf of the Respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 14.8.12, Shri Baldev Singh,
Supdt.(Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE) Punjab, appearing on behalf of
Mrs.Surjit Kaur, Deputy Director (Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE) Punjab,
P.S.E.B. Building, Sector 62, Mohali, delivered a copy of letter dated 7.8.12,
wherein it had been mentioned that the sought information cannot be supplied
as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Commission took a
view that the Respondent-PIO was not conversant with the provisions of RTI
Act, 2005.
Therefore, Mrs.Surjit Kaur, Dy.Director (Vocational Education), O/o
DPI(SE), Punjab, Pb.School Education Building, Top Floor, Sector 62, Mohali,
was directed to supply point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated
information to the complainant free of cost under registered cover within a
period of ten days. She was also directed to explain in writing by furnishing
self attested affidavit justifying the delay as to why the provisions of Section
20(1)(2) and Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 be not invoked against her
for willfully delaying and denying the information to the Complainant in
respect of her RTI application dated 30.12.2011 and for the financial loss and
other detriments suffered by the Complainant and case was adjourned to today
for further hearing.
To-day, Mrs.Surjit Kaur, Dy.Director (Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE),
Punjab, states that point-wise, complete, correct and duly authenticated
information has been supplied to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.8.12.
She has also placed on record one set of information provided by her to the
Complainant, which after perusal has been found to be satisfactory.
Mr.Tirath Singh appearing on behalf of Mr.Kulwant Singh, Complainant,
has given in writing that he is satisfied with the information provided by the
Respondent-PIO.
Mrs.Surjit Kaur, Dy.Director (Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE), Punjab,
also tenders reply to the show cause notice issued under penalty provisions of
the RTI Act, 2005 and prays in person for dropping the show cause notice. She
states that though some delay has caused, but she personally tenders
unconditional apology for the same and assures the Commission that immediate
action shall be taken in future to deal with and disposed of the RTI
applications.
In view of the above, the show cause notice issued to Mrs.Surjit Kaur,
Dy.Director (Vocational Education), O/o DPI(SE), Punjab, is dropped and since
complete information stands provided to the Complainant, the case is disposed
of and closed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 27.8.12.
Sd/( B.C.Thakur)
State Information Commissioner