State information commission, punjab

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Harpreet Singh,

V-Kallon, PO-Katli Kalan,

Mansa.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o ADC, Development,

Zila, Parishad,

Distt-Bathinda.
……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 428 of 2008
Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant.

(ii) Sh. Ved Parkash, Superintendent, O/o CVH, Bathinda

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the required information has been sent to the Complainant. Copy of the same has been taken on record. Complainant is absent. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information supplied.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Harpreet Singh,

V-Kallon, PO-Katli Kalan,

Mansa.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o CVH,

Harnam Singh Wala,

Bathinda.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 436 of 2008
Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant.

(ii) Sh. Ved Parkash, Superintendent, O/o CVH, Bathinda

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the required information has been sent to the Complainant. Copy of the same has been taken on record. Complainant is absent. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information supplied.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,

# 80, Premier Complex,

Chandigarh Road,

Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Distt. Transport Officer,

Moga.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1530 of 2007

Present: (i) Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, the Complainant

(ii) Sh. Raj Kumar, Jr. Assistant, on behalf of the Respondent

Heard.
2. Complainant states that he has received the information and he is satisfied therewith. He, however, prays that as there has been an undue delay in providing the information, compensation under Section 19(8)(b) be awarded to him for his various visits to the Commission and the detriment suffered by him. It is further prayed that proceedings under Section 20 RTI Act, be also initiated against the Respondent.

3. In the above circumstances, the PIO, DTO, Moga is hereby ordered to show cause, why penalty under Section 20, of the RTI, Act 2005 be not imposed on him for failure to supply the information in time and why compensation be not awarded to the Complainant for the detriment suffered by him. He should file an affidavit in this regard on the next date of hearing.

4. Adjourned to 29.05.08 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,

# 80, Premier Complex,

Chandigarh Road,

Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Distt. Transport Officer,

Ludhiana.

……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 1529 of 2007

Present: (i) Gurbaksh Singh, the Complainant

(ii) Sh. Harinder Singh, Jr. Assistant, on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard.
2. Complainant states that he had filed an application for information on 30.06.2007 and that, after a period of ten months, he has been provided only with incomplete information. For obtaining this incomplete information, the Complainant had to undertake numerous visits to the office of the DTO, Ludhiana as well as had to attend many hearings before the Commission. During the earlier hearings, he had requested that he should be compensated for his various visits to the Commission Office, since, the information is not provided to the Complainant within the prescribed period. Respondent states that the information has been sent by registered post on 08.05.2008 to the Complainant and copy of the same is also handed over to the Complainant in the commission. After going through the same the Complainant states that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him. He is directed to point out the deficiencies if any within a week.

4. In the above circumstances, I hereby call upon the Respondent to show cause, why penalty under Section 20, RTI Act, 2005 be not imposed on him for

Contd…P-2

-2-

failure to supply the complete information and why compensation be not awarded

to the Complainant for the loss and detriment suffered by him on account of the aforementioned failure to supply the complete information. He should file an affidavit in this regard on the next date of hearing.

5. Adjourned to 29.05.08 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Om Parkash Goyal,

# 1053, Sector-11,

Panchkula.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Estate Officer,

GAMDA, PUDA Bhawan,

Mohali.
……………………………..Respondent
MR NO.27/2008

In

AC No.242/2007

Present: None

ORDER

Complainant had earlier also filed a complaint (AC-132/08) on the same subject matter. AC-132/08 has been disposed of. Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent is present.

2. Dismissed for non prosecution, copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Sarabhjit Singh Kahlon,

‘Kahlon vill’ Opp. Tel. Exchange,

VPO-Bhattian Bet, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Principal Arya, College, Opp,

Police, Lines, Ludhiana Pb.
……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 2235 of 2007
Present: (i) Sh. Sarabhjit Singh Kahlon, the Complainant

(ii) None is present on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard.
2. Complainant states that incomplete and misleading information has been supplied to him in respect of his application for information dated 05.10.2007. In spite of a number of hearings before the Commission, with reference to item no. 1 of his application, the reply of the Respondent is not satisfactory. The question he has asked is that “since when has the Arya College ground been leased to LDCA.” The Respondent, vide his letter dated 14.10.2007, has stated that Arya College, Ludhiana has not given its cricket ground on lease to any organization and vide letter dated 26.03.2008, has written that LDCA has been granted verbal permission to train the young and budding cricketers since long and the Principal has written that verbal permission has been granted to LDCA to use its cricket ground in the evening. In item No.5 of his application for information, he has asked for the intimation regarding the fee being charged by the LDCA from the children/players undergoing coaching on the college ground and Respondent in his reply has stated that it is only known to LDCA. The cricket ground belongs to

Contd….P-2
-2-

the college and LDCA is charging Rs.6000/- as annual coaching fee. In these circumstances, how can it be possible that there is no written lease agreement with the LDCA and LDCA is charging coaching fee without the knowledge of the college authorities. From this, the Complainant infers that the college authorities are not providing him the lease agreement deliberately. One more opportunity is afforded to the Respondent to disclose true facts supported by documentary proof on the next date of hearing. In case, by the next date of hearing, satisfactory information is not provided by the Respondent, it will be presumed that the College authorities are deliberately withholding the information and initiation of action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be considered.

5. Adjourned to 29.05.08 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Bachan Singh Datewasiyan,

# 735-R, Partab Nagar,

Bathinda.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Commissioner,

MC, Bathinda.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2270 of 2007
Present: (i) Sh. Bachan Singh ‘Datewasiyan’ Complainant

(ii) Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer/o Commissioner, Bathinda

ORDER

Heard.
2. Respondent states that the complaint has been lodged with the Police about the telegrams which was missing from the record issued by Sh. Bachan Singh ‘Datewasiyan’ and the police had been requested for taking further necessary action in this regard . Copy of the same has been taken on record.

3. Adjourned to 18.08.08 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Kashmira Singh,

# 328 CX, Model Town,

Ludhiana.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Principal Secy.to Govt.Pb,

Local Govt., Sector-17/C,

Chandigarh.

……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 2282 of 2007

Present: (i) Sh. Kashmira Singh, Complainant

(ii) Sh. Hakam Singh, Superintendent, O/o The Principal Secy., Local Govt. on behalf of the Respondent.
ORDER

Heard.

2. Complainant states that no information has been given to him against item no. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 &10 as promised by the representative of the M.C. Ludhiana during the last hearing. Today there is none appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Sh. Hakam Singh, Superintendent, O/o the Principal Secy., Local Govt. reiterates his earlier stand that the information is to be supplied by the M.C. Ludhiana.

3. In the above circumstances, the PIO, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is ordered to show cause, why penalty under Section 20, of the RTI, Act 2005 be not imposed on him for failure to supply the information. He should file the affidavit in this regard on the next date of hearing.

4. Adjourned to 30.05.08 (02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Harpreet Singh,

Kattiwal Kalan,

Tehsil-Talwandi Sabo,

Distt-Bathinda.

……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o CVH,

Jassi Bagh Wali,

Bathinda.

……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 447 of 2008
Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant.

(ii) Sh. Ved Parkash, Superintendent, O/o CVH, Bathinda

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that the required information has been sent to the Complainant. Copy of the same has been taken on record. Complainant is absent. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information supplied.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. Joginder Pal,

#32, Ashok Nagar,

Maqsoodan, Jalandhar City.
……………………………. Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

O/o Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation,

Jalandhar.

……………………………..Respondent
CC No. 1327 of 2007

Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant

(ii) Sh. Harjinder Pal, Assistant Town Planner on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

Vide my order dated 04.04.2008, this matter was adjourned to 09.05.208 i.e for today for knowing the status of compliance of the order regarding the payment of the compensation. It has also been mentioned in the order that the Complainant need not appear at today’s date of hearing.

2. The representative of the Respondent intimates that the amount of compensation that is Rs.1500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred only) has been paid by the Respondent through Bank Draft no. 931260 dated 30.04.2008 drawn on the Canara Bank, Jalandhar. According to him, the Complainant has also given his acknowledgement regarding having received the draft. In view of the above, no further proceedings are required to be taken in the case.

3. The complaint is, therefore, disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 9^th May, 2008