State Information Commission, Punjab
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Harish Chander
C/o Chander Ayurvedic Store,
Chaina Bazar,
JAITU - 151202,
Distt. - Faridkot ..…Appellant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Executive officer,
Nagar Council,
JAITU, Distt. - Faridkot
First Appellate Authority,
O/o The Regional Deputy Director,
Local Bodies, Pb.,
Ferozepur …Respondent
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014
ORDER
Vide order of undersigned, the judgment in this case was reserved on 07.05.2015.
As this appeal case is pending for decision for the past many months, I am of the
considered view that facts of this case must be reproduced here for the convenience of the parties concerned.
The facts of this case is as under :-
Sh. Harish Chander moved an application under RTI Act to the Deputy Director,
Local Bodies, Ferozepur, on 14.08.2014. In that RTI request, he has sought for information on 21 points.
The contents of the RTI request is regarding supplying of video recording of
auction of plots/ shops in 2009 and in June, 2013. Designation of the official of MC Jaitu, who conducts the auction of shops/plots. Income/expenditure of Municipal Council, Jaitu from 2006 to 2014. Copy of agreement between of the owner of Hargobind Bus and M.C. Jaitu alongwith a copy of the receipt book of contractor charging fee at the Bus stand from 01.01.2014 to 07.01.2014 etc.
The Deputy Director, Local Bodies, Ferozeopur, through a letter dated 26.08.2014,
has transferred RTI request of Sh. Chander to Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu, under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. The Deputy Director mentioned in that letter that information in connection of points 01 to 17 and points 19 to 21 be given to Sh. Harish Chander immediately and a copy of the information supplied to Sh. Chander be sent to his office also.
Contd…2/-
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014 -2-
After having failed to get the requisite information from the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu, Sh. Chander moved to the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, through first appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act, in which he pleaded that PIO be directed to supply him the requisite information and penal action be taken against the PIO by imposing penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day. He has also requested to the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, that a suitable compensation be awarded to him also.
In the second appeal, Sh. Chander stated that at the first instance he has sought
for information from the PIO of Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur. He further stated that after having failed to get the requisite information from the Deputy Director, he moved an appeal to the Director, Local Government, Punjab on 15.10.2014. He stated that he has not received the information and hence penalty be imposed upon the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu @ Rs. 250/- per day and compensation be awarded to him.
After a notice of hearing was issued to the parties concerned, neither the PIO nor his/her representative appeared to attend the hearing in the State Information Commission(hereinafter as Commission), held on 24.02.2015.
Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh, Clerk, office of Deputy Director, Local Government,
Ferozepur, who appeared in that hearing, in a written submission made before the Commission, stated that Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar was PIO-cum-Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu in this case.
A show cause was issued to Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar, Executive Officer, Municipal
Council, NihalSingh Wala, District Moga, as she was PIO-cum- Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu, when RTI request of Sh. Harish Chander was transferred to her by Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur, on 26.08.2014.
A show cause was issued to Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar as she did not supply the requisite information to the appellant and hence failed to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to her under different provisions of RTI Act.
On the next date of hearing, held on 01.04.2015. Sh. Rachhpal Singh, Executive
Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu, submitted that requisite information was supplied to the appellant vide letter No. 202 dated 31.03.2015.
During the hearing, held on 01.04.2015, it came into the notice of the bench of the under signed that Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar, who was PIO at the time when the appellant has moved his RTI request, has made written submission, which was received in the Commission through Diary No. 7643 on 25.03.2015.
Contd…3/-
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014 -3-
In that submission, she has mentioned that she has already filed a representation through his authorised adviser, Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta before the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and hence the instant appeal case kindly be adjourned till the decision of the Full bench on his prayer made to Hon’ble CIC.
In another submission, dated 01.03.2015, received in the Commission through Diary No. 7642 on 25.03.2015, Ms. Bhatnagar stated that she has authorised Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta to appear before the Commission in the instant case. It was taken on record.
Ms. Bhatnagar, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nihal Singh Wala,
District Moga, through a letter received in the Commission vide Diary no. 7643 dated 25.03.2015, has claimed that Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta has been authorized to appear before the State Information Commission, Punjab, to deal with all legal matters pertaining to RTI.
She has also submitted a letter in the Commission, in which she has mentioned
that Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta has been engaged as an Advocate in the appeal case no. 3542 of 2014.
Sh. Chander authorized Sh. Madan Lal to appear on his behalf before the Commission to plead/contest in the instant appeal case.
In a representation made to Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner, which was received through Diary No. 7643 dated 25.03.2015 in the Commission, Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar made the following submission :
1. That whether an SICP can try and hear the appeal inspite of knowingly that the appellant neither filed his identity proof before PIO nor filed before this Commission inspite of directed.
2. That whether this SICP can issued a show cause notice u/s 20 (1) in a totally false case not maintainable at all on no. of points.
3. That whether this SICP can issued show cause notice u/s 20 (1) or direction for personal hearing inspite of knowingly that Mrs. Poonam Bhatnagar is not the PIO of this case as per RTI Act.
4. That whether this SICP can try and hear this appeal in which Memo of parties made are totally wrong not maintainable at all.
5. That whether this SICP falsely made two PIO’s on his own inspite of knowingly that they are not PIO made by appellant.
Contd…4/-
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014 -4-
6. That whether this SICP can issue the show cause notice to an ex-Executive Officer unnecessarily inspite of knowingly that required information can be provided by the PIO made by the appellant or present Executive Officer as well
as concerned staff because the required complete record are in their possession.
7. That in the present case SICP Mr. Chander parkash of this Commission have also demonstrated complete lack of Judicial discipline while rendering the impugned decision for show cause u/s 20 (1) to Poonam Bhatnagar by no stretch of imagination, it can not be said that this decision is on JUSTIFYING.
8. That the notice of hearing sent by this SICP barred on no. of law points.
9. That it is held by Hon’ble Privy Council that it is well known when a procedure is laid down statutory and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure, the court should not in the name of interpretation lay down a procedure which is contrary to the Express statutory provision.
10. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 448306 observed that the courts spending Judicial time on worthwhile litigations and avoiding the distraction of SHAME LITIGATION as in hand.
11. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court follows as “ The Faith of the people in administrative authority can be sustained only if they act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders.
12. That it is pertinent to mention here that the present EO of MC, Jaitu have not been provided me any record of this Case inspite of written request by my adviser Mr. Naresh K. Gupta on dated 03.03.2015 vide Diary No. 941 uptill now. Copy is attached.
13. That IN VIEW OF THEABOVE MENTIIONED PARA’S KINDLY EXEMPTED ME FROM FILING ANY REPLY IN THIS MATTER.
Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that referred to the matter to
the present full bench for hearing and disposed of the case as per settled Laws mentioned above under RTI Act.
It is further prays that for unnecessary holding up the proceedings for misleading and wastage of valuable time of this Hon’ble Commission for suppressed and concealed the facts about lacks of due procedure prescribed under RTI Act by either reject or disposed off this false and frivolous litigation as prays for in the interest of justice.
On this, Hon’ble C. I. C. wrote that “ On File Pl.”.
Contd…5/-
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014 5-
In another submission made before the bench of the undersigned, which was received through Diary no. 7644 dated 25.03.2015, Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar made the following points :
1. That the above mentioned AC is pending in this Commission & is fixed for 01.04.2015 in Sh. Chander Parkash, chamber.
2. That kindly acknowledged that the Executive officer through his Authorized Advizor have already been filed in this case for hearing before the present FULL BENCH of this commission since Most Important Substational Questions
of laws raised before The Hon’ble C.I.C. of this Commission for secure the ends of Justice or to prevent the abuse of laws of RTI Act.
3. That the complete Matter File have already been Diarise on no. 7643 dated 25.03.2015 in this commission.
Hence it is respectfully Prayed that the above said Appeal Matter
kindly be adjourned to some other date till the decision of FULL-BENCH.
Ms. Poonam Bhatnagar, in another submission in the Commission through Diary
no. 11536 dated 07.05.2015 made the following points against the show cause issued to her :
“1. That it well settled law as well as held by Catena of Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court of India, “Where the appeal appears from the statement to be barred by any law, it should be rejected.”
2. That it is recently observed by the Hon’ble CIC, Dr. S. S. Channy of this commission in A. C. No. 3237 of 2014 D/d on 12.02.2015 as “ It has been noticed that the appellant in this case ha applied for information without I. D. proof. Identity Proof is mandatory with all the authorities including the PIO for seeking the information and with the above observation the case is closed/dismissed.” Similarly, this appeal case also be closed as per above observation. So, the question of penalty or compensation does not arise at all on this score only. Order is attached as A-1.
3. That it is held by Hon’ble P & H High Court in C. W. P. No. 4787 of 2011 in para no. 23 that all applications before the PIO it should be ensured that the appellant files his proof of identity alongwith his application reasons only for the genuine persons file application. Copy of order is attached as A-2.
4. That as per above noted mandatory provisions as well as strictly compliance of the order of Hon’ble Govt. of Punjab vide Circular dt. 8/8/13 on No. 30 Chandigarh which is clearly show that an applicant making request for information must be required to give identity proof alongwith
Contd…6/-
Appeal Case No. 3542 of 2014 -6-
applications otherwise P.I.O. can refuse to give information. Order is attached as A-3.
5. That the applicant has not been filed his identity proof inspite of demanding by the P.I.O. uptill now. So, his appeal must be rejected on this score only and he is not entitled for any penalty or compensation as per para 2 to 5 mentioned above.
6. That specifically no application for information received by me on my tenor. Moreover, one application for seeking pearly information on some points was received by A.P.I.O. of M. C., Jaitu in the first week of Sep., 2014 without any I.D. of applicant.
7. That A.P.I.O. ordered to concerned branches by marking on points for preparing the information.
8. That because of the applicant not sent his I.D. proof to the A.P.I.O. of the office of Nagar Council, Jaitu. So, his application laying pending for waiting of I. D. proof as per mandatory laws noted on above para’s no. 2 to 5. But not received the I. D. proof. So, he is not entitled to any penalty or compensation for his own wrong.
9. That in between that time in Mid of December, 2014 I have been transfer to Nihal Singh Wala from Jaitu and Sh. Rashpal Singh take the charge as P.I.O./E.O., Jaitu and because they hold and controlled the information. So the information can be provided by the present Executive officer/P.I.O. as well as Concerned Staff as the required Complete record is in their possession and I became helpless about this. So, appellant is not entitled to any penalty or compensation on behalf of myself.
10. That as per my knowledge and as per order the required information mostly have been provided to the appellant and rest of points also be provided by the present P.I.O. with affidavit as mentioned in that order. So, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation or penalty on behalf of myself.