Today the complainant is again absent without intimation by Aat7D4

VIEWS: 63 PAGES: 14

									STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                     SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Lakha Singh Azad s/o Sh. Mangal Singh,
VPO Rayyia Khurd, Ward No.10, Tehsil Baba Bakala, Amritsar.            _______ Complainant.
                                  Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh.                   _______ Respondent.

                                        CC No. 3429 of 2010

Present:-      Shri Lakha Singh Azad complainant in person.

                Inspector Piara Singh alongwith H.C. Devinder Pal Singh on behalf of the
                respondent.

ORDER

               The plea of the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh is that the
application for information dated 12.08.2010 was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gurdaspur vide letter No.3526/RTI dated 2.11.2010, as the information was held by that
public authority. The representative of SSP, Gurdaspur states that they had written number of
letters to furnish the requisite fee but complainant failed to respond.
2.             Let the PIO/Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur file a written reply giving
all facts of the case, with copies of the letters written to the complainant till date.
3.             The complainant was called upon on the last date of hearing to file a written
rejoinder specifying the deficiencies in the information, if any, which he has not so far complied
with. He is also directed to file parawise written rejoinder before the next date of hearing with a
copy to the respondent.
4.             To come up on 25.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M.


                                                                   (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                         Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                    Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                            SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Col. Gurcharan Singh Dhami, #24, Phase 3B1,
Sector 60, Mohali (SAS Nagar)                                                          -------------Complainant.
                                  Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana.                                 -------------        Respondent.

                                              CC No. 3686 of 2010


Present:-       Col. Gurcharan Singh complainant in person.

                Shri Gurpiar Singh, Kanugo on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

                The respondent places on record a letter endorsement No.2319-20 dated
29.12.2010 from the office of the Tehsildar, Ludhiana (South) alongwith letter from PIO-cum-
SDM (South), Ludhiana bearing NO.9973/RTI dated 28.12.2010, transferring the request under
Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2.              The complainant seeks time to peruse the reply given by the respondent, which is
allowed.
3.              To come up on 25.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M.


                                                                     (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                           Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                      Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                            SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Ujagar Singh s/o Shri Narain Singh,
VPO Manoli, District Mohali.                                            -------------Complainant.
                                    Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar.                             -------------      Respondent.

                                            CC No. 3669 of 2010

Present:-        Shri Surjit Singh on behalf of the complaiantn.

                 Shri Vijay Singh, reader to Naib Tehsildar, Mohali on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

                 The complainant has been informed vide endorsement No.28 dated 28.12.2010 that the
relevant file containing the information is pending in the Court of the Commissioner , Patiala Division,
Patiala which was sent to the Commissioner vide No.1014 dated 29.07.2007 by the Tehsildar, SAS Nagar.
The respondent further submits that file has been requisitioned back from the Court of Commissioner,
Patiala Division and information will be furnished on return of the file.
2.               In view of the above statement the case is adjourned to28.1.2011.
3.               To come up on 28.01.2011 at 11.00 A.M.



                                                                       (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                             Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                        Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                              SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Satwinder Singh s/o Shri Darbara Singh,
R/o Village Rasanheri, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali (SAS Nagar).       -------------Complainant.
                                    Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
o/o the Deputy Commissioner, Mohali (SAS Nagar)
                                                                    -------------     Respondent.

                                              CC No. 3670 of 2010

Present:-         Shri Satwinder Singh complainant in person.

                  Shri Baljit Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar alongwith
                  Shri Jagmohan Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Village Hasanpur.

ORDER

                  The question asked for by the complainant in his query addressed to the
PIO/Deputy Commissioner, Mohali dated 15.7.2010 is reproduced below:-
                  “ Proof grabbing the Panchayati land by Shri Satwinder Singh of G.P. Rasanheri”.
2.                During the course of hearing, the complainant has explained that Police has
started proceeding against him under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. on the statement of some
persons that Shri Satwinder Singh, the present complainant, is in unauthorized occupation of
some panchayati land. The plea of the complainant is that he has not encroached on any
Panchayati Land and therefore, proceedings against him are false and he should be informed of
the proof of grabbing the panchayati land.
3.                The respondent PIO/Deputy Commissioner has forwarded his request for
information to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar. The Superintendent of
that office alongwith Panchayat Secretary have appeared and stated that they do not have
comprehensive record of all encroachments on panchayati land.                         However, it is further
submitted that on about 50 acres of lands encroached by private individual, cases have been
initiated for ejectment. The name of the present complainant does not figure in this list of the
encroachers. It is further pleaded that proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C. are for
maintenance of peace on account of apprehension of breach of law and order and have nothing
to do with ejectment from panchayati land.
4.                On a direct query if the complainant would be satisfied if details pertaining to
pending cases for ejectment from panchayati land is furnished to him, he replied in the negative
and said that he wants to know the basis of complaint given by Sarpanch of Village Rasanheri
for proceeding under Section 107/171 Cr.P.C.         Let the Panchayat Secretary of Village
Panchayat, Rasanheri confirm if there is any record pertaining to filing of complaint under
Section 107/151 Cr. P.S. and if so furnish a copy of the same to the complainant before the next
date of hearing, which is fixed for 21.1.2011.
5.             To come up on 21.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M.



                                                              (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                    Chief Information Commissioner
                                                               Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Makhan Singh s/o Shri Jagir Singh,
VPO Bika, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                               _______ Complainant.
                                                Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Deputy Commissioner, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.              _______ Respondent.

                                        CC No. 3165 of 2010

Present:-      Shri Makhan Singh complainant in person.

               Shri Sham Sunder, Sadar Kanugo on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDR
               On 30.11.2010, Sadar Kanugo representing the District Revenue Officer, SBS
Nagar had appeared and submitted that the request of the complainant for information was
received on 26.11.2010 vide letter No.418 through Sukhmani Society.             He had therefore
requested for time, which was allowed. On the next date of hearing, the respondent submitted
that the subject matter of information is still under investigation by the District Revenue Officer,
SBS Nagar. Since the inquiry report was yet to be finalized, the respondent undertook to furnish
the same after it had been finalized.
2.             Today, the respondent submits a photocopy of letter No.2002 dated 22.12.2010
from the District Revenue Officer, SBS Nagar. The District Revenue Officer in his report has
given a categorical finding that the present complainant Shri Makhan Singh and his sister Ms.
Harbans Kaur are co-owners of 2-2 marlas each in respect of Khewat No.174/133 24/1,
measurement 14 kanals 16 marlas as per Jamabandi of 2005-06. The total number of owners
as per revenue record is 91. The District Revenue Officer has further confirmed after a local
inquiry, that this area has been developed and is a built-up area for the last 35-40 years.
3.             The complainant further states that the inquiry report of the District Revenue
Officer is not correct. He is dissatisfied with its contents. As regard the quality of the inquiry
report or its correctness, this commission has no powers to adjudicate. If the complainant is
dissatisfied with the findings of the inquiry, he should approach the concerned Deputy
Commissioner for an appropriate remedy.         With these observations, the complaint case is
closed.
                                                                (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                      Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                      SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Avinash Chander s/o Shri Girdhari Lal,
Old Main Bazar, Verka, Distt. Amritsar-143501.                         _______ Appellant
                                        Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Inspector General of Police (Hqrs),
Sector 9, Chandigarh.

FAA-the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Crimes)
Punjab, Chandigarh.                                                       _______ Respondents
                                         AC No.907 of 2010

Present:-       Shri Avinash Chander appellant in person.

                 Inspector Piara Singh on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

                The respondent reiterates the stand taken by him on the last date of hearing, when the
appellant was absent, that no inquiry has been conducted by Shri Harbhajan Singh, Superintendent of
Police (Hqrs) in respect of case-FIR No.55/1998 of Police Station (Sadar), Amritsar. An affidavit to this
effect has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Crime)-cum-APIO.
2.              In view of this clear and categorical pleading of the respondent and the fact that the
record relates to the year1998, no purpose will be served in keeping this appeal pending and accordingly
it is ordered to be closed.



                                                                     (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                           Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                      Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                     SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Jit Singh s/o Sh. Teja Singh
r/o #167-C, Focal Point, Rajpura Distt. Patiala-140401.                 _______ Complainant.

                                               Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala-147001                             _______ Respondent.

                                      CC No.2887 of 2010

Present:       Shri Jit Singh complainant in person.

               None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

               On the last date of hearing, the complainant was absent and respondent Shri
Surinder Kumar Ranga appearing on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala had stated
that complete information had been supplied to the complainant. The case was adjourned to
30.12.2010 to enable the complainant to confirm if he is satisfied with the information.
2.             Today, however, the complainant submits a written rejoinder dated 30.12.2010
pointing out that he also needs information regarding clause III & IV as mentioned in his original
petition about the visit of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala between 1.7.2010 to 15.7.2010 at Water
Treatment Plant, Rejpura. His plea is that no information has been furnished regarding Clause
III and Clause-IV.
3.             In view of the above rejoinder, issue fresh notice to PIO/Deputy Commissioner,
Patiala as also to Mr. Surinder Kumar Ranga, Sub Divisional Officer, Water Supply and
Sewerage Board, Rajpura.
4.             To come up on 28.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M.



                                                                (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                      Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                 Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                       SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Ved Gupta (editor – Doon Ujala),
247, Smith Nagar, Prem Nagar,
Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-248007                                                              _______ Appellant
                                   Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
o/o Tehsildar, Patiala-147001

FAA- the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala-147001                                         _______ Respondents

                                             AC No. 564 of 2010

Present: -       Shri Ved Gupta appellant in person.

                 Shri Inder Kumar, Junior Assistant on behalf of the respondent-department

ORDER
                 The respondent places on record a written reply dated 29.12.2010 enclosing a copy of
Inquiry Report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala bearing No.420/Steno dated 29.12.2010. This
report has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala.
A perusal of the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate shows that they have not been able to locate the
missing record pertaining to Bahi/Jilad No.48/3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has observed that record
has been lost due to negligence of some employee. The respondent further averred today that this WILL
was taken to a judicial court for production in other case and thereafter it is untraceable.
2.               The appellant’s plea on the other hand is that record has been misplaced intentionally
and consequently he has suffered inordinate delay of nearly 8 months.
3.               The PIO naturally cannot give him a copy of the record sought by him, because the
custodian of the record has categorically reported that the record is missing. Inquiry into the matter has
been conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala and submitted to the Deputy Commission,
Patiala.   The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala is directed to take appropriate action against the guilty
officials including, if the facts so require, registration of an FIR against the guilty.
4.               The appellant is satisfied with the above orders and accordingly the appeal is closed.



                                                                          (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                               Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                          Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                     SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Yash Pal Garg, #2052, Sector 49-C,
Chandigarh-160047.                                                      _______ Appellant
                                   Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Managing Director, Milkfed,
SCO 153-155, Sector 34, Chandigarh-160022

FAA- the Managing Director, Milkfed,
SCO 153-155, Sector 34, Chandigarh-160022.                           ______ Respondents

                                        AC No. 602 of 2010

Present:-       Shri Yash Pal Garg appellant in person.

                Shri Rajinder Jaiwal, APIO on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

                The appellant states that information on the following three issues has still not
been furnished:-
   (i)   Regarding Sr. No.3 of his original query dated 27.5.2010, in which he had asked the
         names of the officials from whom Milkfed has taken undertaking before release of their
         retiral benefits for not claiming interest for the delayed period after their retirement from
         Milkfed, it is ordered that the names of the officials should be furnished to the appellant.
         If it is to be withheld under any of the exemptions of clause 8(1), a speaking orders
         should be passed.

   (ii) Regarding Sr. No.4 of his original application, in which he had asked to provide the copy
         of the Common Cadre Service Rules/Service Rules applicable to the retired employees
         of Milkfed under which complainant had been directed to give undertaking for not
         claiming interest on earned leave/gratuity/salary etc. or approach any Court for the
         same, the respondent submits that a copy of the Common Cadre Service Rules has
         been provided. However, under which Rule the respondents have proceeded against
         the present appellant has not been specified. Under Section 4(i)(d) of the Right to
         Information Act, 2005, the respondent is under an obligation to provide reasons for its
         decision. The respondent is under a legal obligation to point out the relevant Rule on
         which it acted against appellant.
     (iii) Regarding Sr. No.6 of his original application in which he had asked to supply copies of
        ACRs for the last five years ending 31.3.2005, the stand of the respondent is that the
        ACR for the year 2002-03 is not available in the record. The respondent is directed to
        conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility for the missing record.

3.              To come up on 10.1.2011 at 11.00 A.M.



                                                                 (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                       Chief Information Commissioner
                                                                  Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                      SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Er. Paramjit Singh, Additional Superintending Engineer,
Grid Maintenance ( P & M), 200 KV Sub Station,
Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd., Verpal,
Distt. Amritsar.                                                         _______ Complainant.
                                       Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Sub Divisional Magistrare-II, Amritsar.                          _______ Respondent.

                                       CC No. 2089 of 2010

Present:-       None on behalf of the complainant.
               None on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER

               On the previous dates of hearings, since the respondent had delayed in
furnishing the information, he was asked to specifically address the issue of delay.
2.             On 3.12.2010, the respondent explained that the information pertaining to Sr.
No.1 and 3 of the queries of the information-seeker had been furnished to him. However, the
information pertaining to Sr. No.2 was not traceable inspite of earnest efforts made by the
respondent and therefore, this information cannot be given.          Sr. No.2 of the complainant
pertains to seeking copy of letter of the SDM, Amritsar issued vide No. Reader/504 dated
25.5.2004. This information was also furnished to the complainant as stated by the respondent
on 16.12.2010. The respondent has further explained that delay had occurred in tracing the
relevant D.O. letter of SDM as letter number of the document had not been incorrectly indicated
by the information-seeker. Since the complainant was absent without intimation on 16.12.2010,
the case was adjourned to 30.12.2010 to enable the complainant to confirm, if he is satisfied
with the reply of the respondent.
2.             Today the complainant is again absent without intimation. He has also not made
any written submission inspite of due and adequate notice.              Consequently, it must be
considered that the complainant has nothing more to say in the matter and that he is satisfied
with the information and also with the explanation given by the respondent.            Hence, the
complaint case is closed, as delay was on account of the complainant giving incorrect details of
D.O. letter number.

                                                                   (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                         Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
                   SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate
133, Bazar No.3, Ferozepur Cantt.                                  _______ Complainant.
                                    Vs.
The Public Information Officer
o/o the Director General of Police, Punjab,
Chandigarh.                                                          _______ Respondent.

                                      CC No.3538 of 2010


Present:-     None on behalf of the complainant.

              Inspector Piara Singh on behalf of the respondent-department.

ORDER


              On the last date of hearing on 16.12.2010, the respondent had submitted that the
entire record has been furnished to the complainant. The complainant, in addition, however,
had required for a copy of letter No.18104-127/HR-4 dated 25.9.2007. A copy of this letter has
also been furnished to the complainant vide No.4357 dated 20.12.2010, a photocopy of which
has also been placed on record by the respondent.
2.            The complainant is absent without intimation. In view of the fact that additional
information sought by him has also been furnished and the fact that he is absent without
intimation, only implies that he is satisfied and he does not want to pursue the complaint case.
Accordingly it is ordered that the complaint case may be closed.

                                                              (R.I. Singh)
December 30, 2010                                    Chief Information Commissioner
                                                               Punjab

								
To top