Grahak JagoGrahak Jago
Home | RTI Services - Fees | Achievements | New Efforts | Governing Body | RTI  FAQ | Contact Us

USEFUL LINKS

 
 
  Grahak Jago  welcomes You
तुम तेजस्वी हो बुद्धीजीवी हो, तुम ही आगे बढ़ोगे।...ग्राहक जागो

मुट्ठी भर संकल्पवान लोग, जिनकी अपने लक्ष्य में द्ढ आस्था है,
इतिहास की धारा को बदल सकते हैं। .... महात्मा गाँधी

ग्राहक जागो का मूल उद्देश्य ......

ग्राहकों को जागरूक करना तथा ग्राहकों का शोषण रोकना |

  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 tax. 
    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 Court

WHO's drinking water standards 1993 WHO Parameters/Norms
BIS - Indian Standard DRINKING WATER - SPECIFICATION (Second Revision) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS  BIS Parameters/Norms

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.  i.e. Six month Basis

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not require I.D.(Identity) proof before Public Information Officer due to security reasons.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO 32-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017

(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri Sanjeev Goyal S/o Ashok Kumar,
H.No.148, Model Town, Phase I,
Near T.V.Tower, Bathinda.-151001.
…Appellant
Versus
1. Public Information Officer
O/o Nagar Council, Jaiton,
District Faridkot-151202.

2. First Appellate Authority,
O/o Regional Deputy Director, Local Government, Punjab,
Block I, Room No.218, District Complex,
Ferozepur Cantt.
…Respondents
Appeal Case No. 560 of 2015
Order
Present:         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.
Contd……p/2

-2-

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.
Chandigarh
Date: 19-05-2015
Sd/-
(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

Sanjeev Goyal
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
H. No. 148, Model Town,
Phase – 1, Near T. V. Tower,
Bathinda - 151001                       ..…Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,
O/o The Executive Officer,
Nagar Council,
Kotkapura, Distt. - Faridkot        ..…Respondent

Complaint Case No. 2462 of 2014

Present :
Sh. Madan Lal, on behalf of the complainant.
Sh. Manmohan Singh, J. E., on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The RTI application is dated 16.07. 2014. The information demanded pertains to
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 today’s hearing.

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 to
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.

                                                                                (Chander Parkash)
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
Facts:
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 satisfied
with the reply received from Deputy Commissioner (S), who is PIO,dated
18/11/’05 the appellant made an appeal to the Additional Commissioner (HQ),
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 with the
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 this. On
questions asked by the appellant pertaining to guidelines and time frames for
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 appeal on
both counts.
The case was heard on March 6, 2006. CB Sharma and RK Gupta, Executive
engineer (Bldg) representing PIO MCD were present
DECISION
The MCD and DDA are separate public authorities. Although the MCD had
offered to seek the information sought by the applicant from the DDA, the
process prescribed by Sec 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was that
the MCD should have transferred the relevant part of the application to the DDA,
with a copy of the forwarding letter to the applicant to enable him to pursue the
matter with DDA. It was not necessary for the applicant to apply for this
information afresh. In any case, as per the comments received from the MCD
 
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 appellant to
purchase the building bye-laws from the market, since this is a priced publication.
Since the appellant was not present at the hearing it is not possible to verify that
he has received the copy of the letter to the DDA stated to have been sent to
him. However, MCD could have also given him the building bye-laws for which,
the publication being priced, they could have charged him the cost as per
procedure laid down in Sec 7(3) of the Act. They may now do so., but this falls
under Para 6 of the original application of the appellant to the PIO and the
information was not provided within the time limits specified under Section 7(1),
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.

(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission:

(P. K. Gera)
Registrar
6/3/’06


 
Home About Us FAQ Privacy Policy Contacts

Grahak Jago | Email : grahakjago@gmail.com