Grahak Jago welcomes You
तुम तेजस्वी हो बुद्धीजीवी
हो, तुम ही आगे बढ़ोगे।...ग्राहक
मुट्ठी भर संकल्पवान लोग, जिनकी अपने लक्ष्य
में द्ढ आस्था है,
इतिहास की धारा को बदल सकते हैं। .... महात्मा
ग्राहक जागो का मूल उद्देश्य
ग्राहकों को जागरूक करना तथा ग्राहकों का शोषण
panel can't let off erring officer(Public Information Officer) with just a
warning : HC
Click to View
Now No Need To Pay House Tax i.e.
Article 113 of the Limitation Act
would apply to the demand made by the Municipal Authorities towards house
RSA 978 of 2011 ,
Municipal Corporation is not entitled to recover the
house tax and interest for three years immediately preceding notice.
RSA 118 of 2004 ,
Order to refund VAT charged
on subsidy from domestic LPG consumer
WHO's drinking water standards 1993
BIS - Indian Standard DRINKING WATER - SPECIFICATION (Second Revision)
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab order : -
The respondents/Op Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed not to charge
enhanced rate of R.O. water then as agreed in the agreement dated 2.5.2011,
until the enhanced rates are approved by the Joint Committee headed by
Deputy Commissioner/Chairman District Planning Board, Bathinda as per Point
No. 7.3 of the agreement. Op Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to go for Uranium
test of the water periodically as per agreement.
Six month Basis
I.D.(Identity) proof before Public Information Officer due to security
|STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION,
SCO 32-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
|Shri Sanjeev Goyal S/o Ashok Kumar,
H.No.148, Model Town, Phase I,
Near T.V.Tower, Bathinda.-151001.
|1. Public Information Officer
O/o Nagar Council, Jaiton,
2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Regional Deputy Director, Local Government, Punjab,
Block I, Room No.218, District Complex,
|Appeal Case No. 560 of 2015
None for the Appellant
Shri Balwinder Singh, Works Supervisor, Nagar Council Jaiton and Shri
Rajinder Pal Singh, Clerk, office of Regional Deputy Director, Local
Government, Ferozepur, on behalf of the respondents.
Shri Sanjeev Goyal Appellant vide an RTI application dated 22-11-2014,
addressed to PIO, sought certain information on 4 points regarding
installation of Water R.O. Plants.
2. Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he filed first appeal with the First
Appellate Authority vide application dated 15-12-2014 under the
provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act,2005 and subsequently
approached the Commission in second appeal vide application dated
29-01-2015 under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act,2005,
which was received in the Commission on 05-02-2015and accordingly, a
notice of hearing was issued to the parties for today.
AC- 560 of 2015
3. A letter dated 16.05.2015 has been received from the appellant
informing that he is unable to attend hearing today due to security
reasons. He has requested to adjourn the case to some other date and has
assured his presence on the next date of hearing.
4. Today, the respondent informs that since I.D. Proof has not been
submitted by the appellant, requisite information has not been supplied
to him. After discussing the matter, the PIO is directed to supply the
requisite information to the appellant before the next date of hearing.
5. Adjourned to 14.07.2015 at 2.00 P.M. for further hearing in
Court No.2, SCO No. 32-34(First Floor), Sector: 17-C, Chandigarh, for
confirmation of compliance of orders.
(Ravinder Singh Nagi)
State Information Commissioner
Punjab State Public Information Officer can not demand further fee after
10 days : SIC Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
H. No. 148, Model Town,
Phase – 1, Near T. V. Tower,
Bathinda - 151001
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Executive Officer,
Kotkapura, Distt. - Faridkot ..…Respondent
Complaint Case No. 2462 of 2014
Sh. Madan Lal, on behalf of the complainant.
Sh. Manmohan Singh, J. E., on behalf of the respondent.
The RTI application is dated 16.07. 2014. The information demanded
certified copy of agreement made with Water P. O. plants by the Nagar Council,
Kotkapura. The complaint with the Commission is dated 29.08.2014.
Sh. Manmohan Singh, J. E., who appeared on behalf of the respondent in today’s
hearing, submits that the requisite information could not be supplied to the
complainant, Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, as he has failed to deposit the required fee of
Rs. 24034/- which was demanded from the complainant, vide letter no. 2823 dated
25.09.2014. A copy of the same is on record.
Sh. Madan Lal, appeared on behalf of the complainant, Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, in
After examining the documents placed on record, it is found that the respondent-
PIO has failed to demand the required fee within the stipulated time of ten days
from the date of receipt of the RTI application under rules of the RTI Act.’.
Sh. Manmohan Singh, J. E., states that requisite information would be supplied
the complainant ‘free of cost’ within fifteen days from today .
On this, Sh. Madan Lal, states that if Sh. Manmohan Singh, J. E., fulfills his
promise, he has no objection if the case is closed.
In view of the above, the case is disposed of and closed with the directions
that the respondent-PIO will fulfill the promise made by Sh. Manmohan Singh, J.
E., during the hearing in the Commission today.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
19th November, 2014
State Information Commissioner
|Central Public Information Officer can not
demand further fee after 30 days : CIC Delhi (Double Bench)
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Application No CIC/AT/A/2005/00004
Dated: December 27/1/’06
Right to Information Act – Section19
Name of Applicant: Shri Raj Kumar
Name of Public Authority: MCD
Shri Raj Kumar of Jhilmil, Delhi had made an application to Deputy
Commissioner, MCD (SHS) on June 5, 2005, requesting action taken on a
complaint on ongoing illegal construction in Dilshad Garden Delhi. Not
with the reply received from Deputy Commissioner (S), who is PIO,dated
18/11/’05 the appellant made an appeal to the Additional Commissioner
Appellate Authority-1, MCD, who, in citing a subsequent letter from the
PIO to the
appellant dated 29/11/’05, indicated that the property continues to vest
DDA from whom information had been sought, and not with the MCD. But in
response to the applicant’s request that a copy of the letter written to
the DDA be
given him, he advised the appellant to make a fresh application for
questions asked by the appellant pertaining to guidelines and time
taking action, the appellant was told that Building Bye-laws governing
MCD are a
priced publication and may be purchased from the market. Hence the
The case was heard on March 6, 2006. CB Sharma and RK Gupta, Executive
engineer (Bldg) representing PIO MCD were present
The MCD and DDA are separate public authorities. Although the MCD had
offered to seek the information sought by the applicant from the DDA,
process prescribed by Sec 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
the MCD should have transferred the relevant part of the application to
with a copy of the forwarding letter to the applicant to enable him to
matter with DDA. It was not necessary for the applicant to apply for
information afresh. In any case, as per the comments received from the
|vide their letter No 423/DC/SHS/2006, the requisite copy
has been supplied the
required copy on 23/01/’05 (sic). MCD admit that they had asked the
purchase the building bye-laws from the market, since this is a priced
Since the appellant was not present at the hearing it is not possible to
he has received the copy of the letter to the DDA stated to have been
him. However, MCD could have also given him the building bye-laws for
the publication being priced, they could have charged him the cost as
procedure laid down in Sec 7(3) of the Act. They may now do so., but
under Para 6 of the original application of the appellant to the PIO and
information was not provided within the time limits specified under
this shall be provided free of charge as per Sec 7(6).
Let a copy of this decision be sent free of cost to the parties.
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
(P. K. Gera)