Respecfully submitted/showeth,
Please refer to your order dated 22 May 2012 in case of Appeal AC-572 of 2012.
You order is basically erroneous in the light of the law, rules, practices as well as for the matter of delivery of justice.
First of all, I must make it clear that I had no authority to appear in this case. I was bussy in another care AC-333 of 2012 before the Hon;ble Commissioner Mr. Harindepal Singh Mann. When I came out of his court, every body (including PIO) was frantically looking for me (I do not know why). Later I came to know about the case befre your honour. I immediately called the Appellant to inform him about the case. He said that he never received any notice for hearing. He further said that he was in the High court and will be at the commission office within 20 minutes.
I just entered your court-room (read chamber - where the court was held) and informed you that Mr. Balu was in the High Court and he would be coming in 20 minites. I also told the court that Mr. Bali was not aware of today's hearing as no notice was sent to him, and requested the court to wait for him. I also told your honour that I do not carry any berief on behalf of Mr. Bali and I am not authorised on his behalf.
Your honour comforted me to have a chair and said that the court has taken cognizance of the RTI Application and the circumstances thereafter, the court is of the opinion that no cognizable offence is made out and there was no need of any action at the level of police to investigate the matter. I again submitted that I do not know the subject matter of the RTI Aplication as well as what transpired thereon. So I cannot offer any comment and again requested the court to wait for mR Bali, who will be here any moment. Court insisted that this was just an obnoxious international call and there is nothing that police could do any thing in the matter. Court not even offered me to read from the file to submit my comments, if at all court wanted me to respond on behalf of the Appellant.
Court insisted that the case is being disposed of. I said well if the court is convinced that way as per law, the court may pronounce the order.
In this connection, this hon'b;e court has erred on following counts:
01. As per Section 7(1) and 19(1) PIO and FAA were legally under obligation to respond within the prescribed time limits. Court miserably erred on this count.
02. If the Appellant was not present and there was a word from him that he will be visiting the court in short time, court should have waited before pronouncing the order.Court miserably erred on this count too.
03. It was brought in the notice of the court that "No Notice was delivered to Mr. Bali (as I submitted in the court)", court should had either waited for Mr. Bali to come and appear or should have adjourned the matter to another date. Court miserably erred on this count too.
04. Mr. Bali ultimately appeared in the court and apprised the Honorable commission about the true facts and apprised of the violations committed by the PIO as well as FAA and demanded the action for imposing penalty as well as giving for the compensation. Court was adamant not to re-look into his order. I also rejoined the court and reiterated my above statements. Court was adamant not to reconsider the matter. Court miserably erred on this count too.
05. In the CC-461 of 2011 in Kehar singh vs. PIO Punjab & Haryana High Court, Full commission has decided to relegate the cases back to the FAA where it was decided that where the FAA has not passed any order, such cases will be relegated to the FAA for passing an order, before the appeals/complaints are taken up by the commission. Court miserably erred on this count too.
06. After the court proceedings, we (Myself and Mr. Bali) went to the dispatch section of the commission and checked all the record of dispatch of Notice of hearing for 22 May 2012. Despite a thorough search of the registers and records, no proof of dispatch (Speed Post Receipt) could be found. That confirms that the notice was not dispatched.
06. As per RTI Rules, the RTI Regulations and Full commission meeting resolutions, it is mandatory that if any party fails to appear on the first hearing, the case will not be closed and another opportunity will be afforded to the parties. Court miserably erred on this count too.
07. Otherwise also where there is a serious flaws in the order Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, in CC-2666 of 2009 order dated 27-01-2010, in para 5 in S.K. Mishra vr. PIO of the Punjab State Information Commission, ruled that "The Appellant has been explained that there is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005, to review/re-open/recall an order passed by the Commission. However, in certain exceptional cases, on request, cases are reopened. But there is no thumb-rule which can be applied to all requests for reopening/recalling a case. Recall/review/re-open of a case is done only in such cases where there is : 1. Technical error in the documents; 2. There is an omission to consider certain material facts relevant to a decision ; 3. The information-seeker was not given an opportunity to be heard and 4. PIO did not send enclosures of relevant supporting documents while responding to the Appellant/Complainant."
A case is made out to reopen the case and matter may be heard again on merit of the case as per law. This plea was repeatedely made by Mr. Bali in my presence. But court refused to budge. Court miserably erred on this count too.
This has been sent to the commission to set right the record of the proceedings.
The order of the Hon'ble commission as downloaded from the website of the commission is reproduced below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Parbodh Chander Bali,
16-Shiv Batala Road,
Amritsar- 143001. …Appellant
Versus
1. Public Information Officer,
O/o Senior Superintendent of Police,
Punjab State Crime Branch &
Cyber Investigation,
Mohali.
2. Public Information Officer,
O/o ADGP, Crime, Pb.,
Punjab Police Headquarter,
Sector-9,
Chandigarh. …Respondents
AC- 572/2012
Order
RTI Application filed on : 06.01.2012
PIO replied : Nil
First Appeal : 18.02.2012
First Appelalte Authority Order : NIL
Second Appeal received on : 19.04.2012
Information Sought:
The appellant seeks ATR ATR on his complaint dated Nov 12/2011 sent by speed post on Nov.16/2011, day today progress in the above matter and also copy of rules regarding investigation of complaint in a cyber crime and responding to the complainant.
PIO's Reply:
NIL
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information not provided
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information not provided
Order of FAA:
NIL
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Contd…2/-
-2-
The following were present:
Mr. Surinder Bhanot, for the Appellant.
Mr. Chanjiv Lamba for the Respondent.
Mr. Surinder Bhanot appearing on behalf of the appellant without any authority letter. The Respondent replied that the complaint filed on 06.01.2012 was examined and it caused no cognizable offence which was not pursued. This has been conveyed to the appellant.
Decision:
Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed.
Announced in the open court.
Copies of order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh. (Surinder Awasthi)
Dated: 09.05.2012 State Information Commissioner
After the order was dictated in the open court, Mr. P.C. Bali, appellant had appeared. He was read out the above order.
The appellant insisted on imposing penalty on PIO-Respondent. Since there is no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of Respondent-PIO in providing the information, there is no justification to impose the same. Since the information stands supplied, the case is disposed of and closed as above.
Announced in the open court.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Place: Chandigarh. (Surinder Awasthi)
Dated: 22.05.2012 State Information Commissioner.
--
GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS
Surendera M. Bhanot - Coordinator, RTIFED, Punjab Chandigarh - President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh - Life Member, Chandigarh Consumers Association
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-5000970
FAX: 91-172-5000970
Mail Me 
No comments:
Post a Comment