|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
|
|
|
Wrong Water test Report issued by Govt. Lab has been challenged
and proved in Punjab State Consumer Court
