Grahak Jago Sewa

Matrimonial Cases :

In the light of article 20(2) of the constitution of INDIA and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence and F.I.R. case, can't go parallel.
Proceedings in Case DV Act u/s 12, 14 etc and Case u/s 498A etc (FIR) can't go parallel because in both cases offences are similar. See more
The Dowry Prohibition ACT, 1961. An Act to prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.
Giving dowry is an offence and Receiving dowry is also an offence. section 3, 4, 7(3) See more
No Maintenance allowance to wife section 125 (4) See more
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Free of cost section 24 See more

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

INDIAN AIR FORCE - Regarding alimony to wife from pay
1. By way of the impugned order dated 06.03.2020, the respondent No.2 (The Air Chief Marshal, Chief Of Air Staff, Air Headquarters (VB) Fafi Marg, New Delhi.) has ordered to deduct a sum of Rs.18,100/- from petitioner’s salary as an amount towards maintenance of his wife Aarti Kanwar, in exercise of power under Section 92(i) of Air Force Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") read with Rule 162 of the Air Force Rules, 1969.
6. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 06.03.2020 (Annex.9) shall remain stayed.
:: HC RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR - (DINESH MEHTA),J dated 24/07/2020 Click To View Order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Armed Forces Tribunal, reginal Bench Chandigarh at Chandimandir, Original Application no. 1229 of 2017
Decide On 31.July.2018 Click To View Order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong Water test Report issued by Govt. Lab has been challenged and proved in Punjab State Consumer Court View
Potable water means, water which is fit for drinking (Para 9) Opposite Party No1 cannot write word “water is portable” in the report without conducting all the tests as per norms of BIS Standard (44 Tests of BIS Parameters as below). - Special Bench of SCDRC, PUNJAB - dated : 5.Sep.2016

BIS - Indian Standard DRINKING WATER - SPECIFICATION (Second Revision) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS BIS Parameters/Norms

WHO's drinking water standards 1993 WHO Parameters/Norms
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Info 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 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 ,

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

A Person seeking benefit of subsidy under a scheme is not a consumer as the subsidy is not a service with in the meaning of consumer protection act 1986, and his remedy does not lie under the consumer protection act 1986 by filing a complaint
Revision Petition no. 4894 of 2012 decided on 8.Feb.2013 By Apex Consumer Court and
RP No. 3382 & 3383/2016 decided on Dated : 27.Feb.2017

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The respondent PIO is directed to bifurcate and intimate the documentation fee point wise for point 7 to 12 of RTI application as already requisite by the applicant to the respondent by the next date of hearing PUNJAB STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION Red Cross Building (Near to Rose Garden) Sector-16, Chandigarh Contact No. 0172-2864115, Fax No. 0172-2864125 Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com, Email-ID psic25@punjabmail.gov.in Sh. Sanjeev Goyal S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Kothi No. 148, Model Town, Phase-1, Near T.V. Tower, Bathinda Appellant Versus Public Information Officer O/o Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda First Appellate Authority O/o Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda Respondent Appeal Case No. 167 of 2018 Present: Nobody present on the behalf of the applicant. Sh. Pawan Kumar, JE (78892-56768) present on the behalf of respondent. ORDER 1. Applicant is absent for today’s hearing but a letter has been received in the Commission viding diary no. 5553 dated 19.03.2018 requested therein for his exemption for today’s hearing. This letter has been taken on record. 2. A letter has been received in the Commission from PIO cum Nigam Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bathinda viding diary no. 5489 dated 18.03.2018 mentioning therein that the applicant has not deposited the documentation fee till date. This letter has been taken on record. 3. Sh. Pawan Kumar, JE sates that the applicant has not submitted the documentation fee demanded of Rs. 3272/- for point no. 7 to 12 of RTI application. 4. After hearing the respondent and examining the case file, it is found that the applicant has already demanded the point-wise documentation fee for point no 7 to 12 of RTI application. The respondent PIO is directed to bifurcate and intimate the documentation fee point wise for point 7 to 12 of RTI application as already requisite by the applicant to the respondent by the next date of hearing so that the applicant may pay the documentation fee for required point and provide the requisite information accordingly, failing to which action under Section 20(1) will be initiated against the respondent PIO. The applicant is also advised to deposit the documentation fee once point point-wise documentation fee description has been received from the respondent, failing to which ex-parte decision may be taken. 5. The subject matter is adjourned to 01.05.2018 at 11.00 AM for further proceedings. 6. Announced in the Court, copy of the order to be sent to the parties. Sd/- (Dr. Pawan Kumar Singla) State Information Commissioner Chandigarh Dated: 20.03.2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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