Get documents about "STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB - DOC 5
Document Sample
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Lakha Singh Azad,
s/o Sh. Mangal Singh,
VPO – Raian, W. No. 10,
Teh. Baba Bakala, Distt. Amritsar.
_______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Amritsar (Rural).
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Inspector General of Police,
Boarder Range, Amritsar.
_______ Respondents
AC No. 963 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Gautam Thapar, Advocate on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Chhajju Ram, DSP, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The respondent appeared through Sh. Chahajju Ram. He seeks one
adjournment. Time is allowed. The case is adjourned to 18.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Gurbir Singh through
Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate
# H. No. 567, Tribune Colony,
Kansal, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
_______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ludhiana.
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Inspector General of Police,
Zonal – 2, Jalandhar.
_______ Respondents
AC No. 965 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Asstt. on behalf of the respondents.
ORDER
Heard the parties. The case is adjourned for pronouncement of order to
11.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Gurbir Singh through
Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate
# H. No. 567, Tribune Colony,
Kansal, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
_______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ludhiana.
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Inspector General of Police,
Jalandhar Zone, Jalandhar.
_______ Respondents
AC No. 966 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Asstt. on behalf of the respondents.
ORDER
Heard the parties. The case is adjourned for pronouncement of order to
11.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh, (Retd.),
BW 5-C, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi – 110088.
_______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Police,
S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab.
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Inspector General of Police,
Zonal – I, Patiala.
_______ Respondents
AC No. 978 of 2009
Present: i) None on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Jaspal Singh, ASI, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The respondent represented by Jaspal Singh had placed on record letter No.
18181/C dated 22.12.2009, wherein it has been stated that information sought by the
appellant has already been sent to him vide SSP, SAS Nagar No. 8048-49/S/RTI
dated 06.08.2009 and again vide No. 13927/S/RTI dated 08.12.2009.
The appellant is absent without intimation nor he has sought any adjournment.
To enable the appellant to confirm that he has received the information, the case is
adjourned to 08.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
The complainant has subsequently appeared. He has explained that his train
from Delhi got delayed because of which he could not turn up in time. A copy of the
letter No. 18181-C dated 22.12.2009 placed on record by SSP, Mohali was supplied
to the appellant. On perusal of this, the appellant states that he is not satisfied as the
information sought by him at Sr. No. A, B & C of his application dated 02.04.2009 has
not been given to him. These points are re-produced below for the sake of brevity.
Contd…P2/-
-2-
“(a) Was the FIR lodge against me in any police station? If yes, please
provide details.
(b) Was any chargesheet / challan served on me? If yes, please provide
details.
(c) Was the above served through my local police station i.e., Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi? If yes, please provide details.”
The appellant also requests that information may be supplied to him in English
language. A direction to this effect was given by the first appellate authority also.
Let the respondent supply the information on the above-mentioned three points
in English language to the appellant before the next date, which is 08.01.2010 at
11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Pushpa Devi,
w/o Sh. Sher Singh,
H. No. 2184, Sector 71,
Mohali, Punjab.
_______ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Mohali, Punjab.
_______ Respondent
CC No. 3757 of 2009
Present: i) Smt. Pushpa Devi, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Jaspal Singh, ASI, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The respondent states that this very information was sought by the present
complainant in an earlier case CC No. 3263 of 2009. The complaint was closed as the
respondent had supplied the information to the complainant, stating that the matter is
still under investigation.
Now, the complainant has moved fresh application directly to the State
Commission seeking the status of the investigation. The respondent states that the
investigation has since been completed and the complainant can apply to the PIO to
obtain copy of the same. The complainant may accordingly approach the PIO, who
shall supply the information. With this direction, the complaint case is closed.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Surinder Pal Bansal,
s/o Sh. Hem Raj,
R/o Para House Road,
Gali No. 7, Bathinda. _______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Director General of Police,
Punjab Police Headquarter,
Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Director General of Police,
Punjab Police Headquarter,
Sector 9, Chandigarh.
_______ Respondents
AC No. 985 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Surinder Pal Bansal, appellant in person.
ii) Sh. Harmanbir Singh Gill, SP (Traffic), on behalf of the
respondent.
ORDER
Heard the parties. The denial of information by the PIO needs to be
reconsidered by the PIO, on merits of the case. The PIO is therefore directed to apply
his mind and pass a speaking order on each of the nine issues on which information
has been sought by the appellant vide his application dated 11.06.2009. The case is
adjourned to 01.02.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Jaspaal J. Singh,
# 51/7, Scheme 10,
Sector 21, Yamunanagar-Nigdi,
Pune – 411044, Maharashtra.
_______ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Police, (Rural)
Amritsar, Punjab.
_______ Respondent
CC No. 3805 of 2009
Present: i) None on behalf of the complainant.
ii) Sh. Chhajju Ram, DSP and Sh. Gian Chand, HC, on behalf of the
respondent.
ORDER
The complainant had moved an application dated 26.10.2009 to SSP, Amritsar
seeking safety of his sons and own-self from his in-laws. A perusal of this application
shows that no specific information has been sought by the complainant and the
application is more in the nature of seeking assistance from the Police for his own and
his son’s safety.
The respondent represented by Sh. Gian Chand has placed on record letter
No. 2070-RTI dated 30.12.2009 stating the facts of the case.
The complainant is absent without intimation nor he has sought any
adjournment. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the complaint case is closed with
the direction to the respondent that a copy of the letter No. 2070-RTI dated
30.12.2009 should also be sent through registered post to the complainant.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Karamjit Singh,
s/o Sh. Balvir Singh,
Kothi No. 56, Officer Colony,
Ferozepur, Punjab.
_______ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director General of Police (Prisons) Punjab,
SCO No. 8-9, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh
_______ Respondent
CC No. 3816 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Karamjit Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. R.K. Arora, SP (Jails) & Sh. Chetan Parkash, on behalf of the
respondent.
ORDER
The respondent states that the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.
49,924/- as cost/fee for supplying the copies of the documents sought by him.
During the course of hearing, the parties agreed that the complainant may
inspect the record and identify the documents which he needs. Thereafter, he shall
pay the fee as per RTI Act for obtaining copies of the documents he needs. The
respondent will supply these copies to him, after deposit of the fee.
As regards the record of S.S Saggu is concerned, it is noted that it pertains to
third party and no public interest is involved in disclosure of the same. Therefore, this
information need not to be given.
The case is adjourned to 28.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Mahinder Singh,
s/o Sh. Harminder Singh,
# 305, New Joginder Nagar,
Jalandhar – 06.
_______ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director Vigilance Bureau Punjab,
SCO No. 60-61, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh.
_______ Respondent
CC No. 3818 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Mahinder Singh, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, Inspector & Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Sr. Asstt.
on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The complainant had sought information from the PIO of the Vigilance Bureau
as to action taken on his complaint. The Vigilance Department informed him that his
application has been forwarded to Secretary, Vigilance for further action by the
concerned Administrative Department. The information sought by the complainant has
been supplied.
The complainant, however, is not satisfied and seeks to know what action the
Administration Department has taken on the reference received from the Vigilance
Bureau through Secretary, Vigilance. For seeking this information the complainant is
required to approach the PIO of the Administrative Department, which is Department
of Revenue and Rehabilitation. With this direction, the complaint case is closed.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Rajesh Kapil,
H. No. 606, Gali No. 12/B,
Avtar Nagar, Near T.V. Centre,
Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.
_________ Appellant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner,
Jalandhar – II, Punjab.
__________ Respondent
AC No. 696 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Rajesh Kapil, appellant in person.
ii) Sh. Khushi Ram, HC, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The PIO-cum-Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner Jalandhar-II has vide
his letter No. 1512/RTI dated 14.12.2009, addressed to the complainant given the
information which had been sought in the present case.
The complainant, however, points out few discrepancies, which may be
removed by furnishing additional information pertaining to point No. 3 and 4 of his
present complaint dated 10.09.2009. The complainant may meet the PIO on any
working date in this regard. The case is adjourned to 18.01.2010 at 11.00 AM for
confirmation of compliance.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar,
s/o Sh. Davinder Kumar,
Near Dr. Sharma Wali Gali,
VPO – Raiya, Amritsar – 143112.
_________ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Sr. Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Amritsar, Punjab.
__________ Respondent
CC No. 3549 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. Rakesh Kumar, complainant in person.
ii) Sh. Chhajju Ram, DSP, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The complainant has been supplied the requisite information. This has also
been placed on record vide No. 2068 RTI dated 30.12.2009 from SSP, Amritsar
(Rural).
The complainant, however, states that he has not been given full information
pertaining to Manjit Kaur wife of late Sh. Sher Jasjeet Singh r/o Village Wazir Bhular.
Let the respondent also file reply pertaining to this individual.
To come up on 18.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Jagdish Bansal,
s/o Sh. Prithi Chand,
W. No. 21, Khokhar Road,
District Mansa, Punjab.
_________ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Manager,
Punjab Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.
Branch Mansa, Punjab.
__________ Respondent
CC No. 3552 of 2009
Present: i) Sh. G.S. Verma, Advocate, on behalf of the complainant.
ii) Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Manager, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
The complainant represented by Sh. G.S. Verma has appeared and stated that
the respondent has been giving information under RTI Act to other information
seekers. The respondent has even displayed on notice board outside the office the
names and details of the PIO and also of the first appellate authority under RTI Act.
To settle the preliminary issue, whether the respondent is a public authority
under RTI Act, it would be relevant to go through the Bye-laws of the society, its
management structure and its source of funding, including equity holding.
Let the respondent place on record the relevant documents/information
pertaining to these issues.
To come up on 25.01.2010 at 11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Dinesh Bhatia,
Ashiana Cottage,
Kothi No. 16-A, Street No. 9-B,
Anand Nagar-B, Patiala, Pb.
_________ Complainant
Vs.
Public Information Officer,
O/o Inspector General of Police, (HQ),
Sector 9, Chandigarh.
__________ Respondent
CC No. 3574 of 2009
Present: i) None on behalf of the complainant.
ii) Sh. Vithal Hari, ASI, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing the complainant was absent. The respondent had
taken the plea that the complainant has not sought any information but an opinion
from the office of the PIO regarding appointment in priority list. The complainant was
duly informed that seeking of opinion is not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Since the complainant was absent on the last date of hearing, to give him one
opportunity, the case was adjourned to 31.12.2009.
Today, he is again absent without intimation nor he has sought any
adjournment. Given the nature of his query, the stand of the respondent is correct.
Therefore, the complaint case is closed.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Smt. Shimla Garg,
w/o Sh. Sham Lal,
H. NO. 40, Central Town,
Vill. – Daad, P.O. – Lalton,
Ludhiana – 142022. _______ Appellant
Vs.
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Advocate General Punjab,
Chandigarh.
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Principal Secretary to Govt. Punjab,
Department of Home Affairs & Justice,
Chandigarh.
__________ Respondents
AC No. 873 of 2009
Present: i) None on behalf of the appellant.
ii) Sh. Krishan Pal, Sr. Asstt. Jail Branch & Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Jr.
Asstt. O/o DGP (Prisons), on behalf of the respondents
ORDER
On the last date of hearing the appellant was absent. To enable the appellant
to confirm that information has been received by her, the case was adjourned to
31.12.2009.
Today, respondent appeared through Sh. Krishan Pal & Sh. Ramesh Kumar. It
is stated that the information has been supplied. A copy of letter from DGP (Prisons)
bearing No. 8288/90 dated 28.12.2009, addressed to the present appellant enclosing
the copies of the information sought by her has also been placed on record.
Since the appellant is absent, let her confirm that she has received the
information and that she is satisfied with it. The case is adjourned to 18.01.2010 at
11.00 AM.
(R.I. Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
31st December, 2009 Punjab
