state information commissioner, haryana sco 114...

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. Appeal Case No. of 2017

Right to Information Act – under Section - 19

Name of the Appellant

:

Name of the Respondent

:

RTI application filed on :

SPIO replied on :

First Appeal filed on :

First Appeal decided on :

Date of Second Appeal :

Date of Hearing : 12.12.2017

State Information Commissioner : Shri Samir Mathur

ORDER

This case hd been fixed for hearing through video conferencing. The Appellant is

----present in the Commission’s VC Room Chandigarh. Shri ------------SPIO------ is

present in the VC Room Faridabad.

2.

3.

Heard. Announced. To be communicated also.

Place :Chandigarh (Samir Mathur) Dated:12.12.2017 State Information Commissioner, Haryana

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh

SCN No. /17 in Case No./17


Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Name of the Appellant :

Name of the Respondent :

RTI Application filed on :

Ist Appeal decided on :

2nd Appeal decided on :

Show Cause Notice issued on :

Reply to the Show Cause Notice :

Date of Hearing of the Show Cause

Notice

: 12.12.2017


ORDER

The Appellant is ………present. Shri ------------SPIO------ is

present.

2. The summary facts of the case is given in the table above.

3.

5. With the above directions and observations, the case is decided.


STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh.

Complaint No. of 2016



Name of the Complainant :

Name of the Respondent :

RTI application filed on :

SPIO replied on :

Date of Complaint :

Date of Hearing 12.12.2017


ORDER

The Appellant/Complainant is ………..not present. Shri ……. is present.

2.



Heard. Order signed. To be communicated also.

SIC[SM]

3.11.17 LO

( in SCN Case No. A Show Cause Notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act shall be issued to the

SPIO-cum Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kheri Taga, Distt. Sonipat as to why action should not be initiated against him for not furnishing the requisite information to the appellant

within the stipulated period prescribed under the Act. He will submit his reply to

the Show Cause Notice by 1.8.2014 and be personally present for hearing of the case

on 14.8.2014 at 11.00 AM.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. Appeal Case No. 8079 of 2017



: Shri Amandeep Singh Advocate s/o

ShjriBalwinder Singh, Village:Kuttiwal

Kalan, Distt. Bathinda (Punjab).

M.9815113042


: 1.SPIO-Executive Engineer, Rori Water

Services Division, Sirsa.

2.FAA-Chief Engineer Coordination,

Irrigation & Water Resources

Department Panchkula.

RTI application filed on : 11.7.2017

SPIO replied on : 27.7.2017

First Appeal filed on : 8.9.2017

First Appeal decided on : No decision

Date of Second Appeal : 16.10.2017



ORDER

The Appellant is ………present. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present.

2.

3.






: Shri Pushpinder Lal c/o Chaudhary

Gurdev Singh, H.No.55, Om Nagar

Colony (Chota Khuda Khurd),

PO:Slariheri, Distt.Ambala.


: 1.SPIO-D.G.Home Guards Haryana, 30

Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

FAA o/o D.G.Home Guards Haryana, 30

Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.


SPIO replied on : 4.7.17, 9.8.17,30.6.17.

First Appeal filed on : 10.7.17/17.8.17





ORDER


2.

3.






: ShriAshok Kumar Bansal R/o Near

Vaish Girls College, Samalkha, Distt.

Panipat.


: 1.SPIO-DTP Hqr o/o DG Town &

Country Planning, Haryana

Chandigarh.

2.FAA o/o DG Town & Country

Planning, Haryana Chandigarh.


SPIO replied on : No reply


First Appeal decided on : 14.6.2017




ORDER


2.

3.






: Shri Rajesh Yadev s/o Lt.Shri Chand,

Darbaripur Road, Village

Badshahpur,Gurugram-122101.


: 1.SPIO-DTP Hqr o/o DG Town &

Country Planning, Haryana

Chandigarh.

2.FAA o/o DG Town & Country

Planning, Haryana Chandigarh.








ORDER

Tis case had been fixed for hearing through video conferencing. The Appellant is

present in the VC Room Gurugram. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present in the VC Room

Chandgiarh..

2.

3.



STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. Appeal Case No.7824 of 2017



: Shri Jaipal Singh s/o Shri Devak Ram,

VPO: Nidana, Distt. Jhajjar.

M.9468221048.


: 1.SPIO-Executive Engineer, Jind Water

Services Division, Joind.


Irrigation Department, Haryana,

Panchkula.


SPIO replied on : 19.6.17, 8.9.17, 23.6.17






ORDER


present in the VC Room Jind. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present in the VC Room

Jind/Chandgiarh.

2.

3.






: Shri Sandeep Kumar s/o Shri Mange

Ram, Village:Bhari Akbarpur,

Tehsil:Uklana, Distt. Hisar.


: 1.SPIO-XEN Irrigation, Haryana,

Hissar.

2.FAA-S.E.Irrigation (C) Hissar.








ORDER


present in the VC Room Hisar. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present in the VC Room Hisar.

2.

3.



STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh.

1. Appeal Case No.8081 of 2017 2. Appeal Case No.8083 of 2017



: Shri Gulshan Valecha s/o Shri Sada

Nand, Plot No.17A, Shop No.17,

Khangarh Shah Junaid, Balecha

Bhojnalya, Parijaat Chowk, Railway

Road, Hisar.


: 1.SPIO-Haryana Wakf Board, Hisar.

2.FAA-Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala

Cantt-133001.




First Appeal decided on : 20.9.2017, 29.8.2017




ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Moti Ram SPIO-Inquiry Officer Haryana Wakf

Board Headquarter Ambala Cantt, Shri Nazmuddin Rent Controller o/o Wakf Board

Hisar-SPIO are present.

2. In both these cases, the appellant has expressed his grievance with the

Respondent-SPIO Wakf Board Hisar that certain documents connected with the lease

and occupation of wakf property, in which the appellant has interest, have not been

provided to him despite a lot of effort. He informed the Commission that apart from

these two appeals being considered by the Commission today, there are two other

RTI Applications dated 14.8.2017 (19 points) & dated 19.8.2017 (8 points) in

Second Appeal which he has filed before the Commission and are under process.

Besides this, one other First Appeal (dated 15.12.2017) is also pending before the

First Appellate Authority. All these appeals concern the same issue namely; lease,

occupation,partition etc of the wakf board property.

3. After hearing the ASPIO - Nazmuddin Rent Controller representing the SPIO as

well as the SPIO from the Headquarter Wakf Board Ambala Cantt, it was decided by

concensus that the appellant shall be given full opportunity to conduct an inspection of

all the relevant record, files and documents in control of the wakf board in Hisar.

4. The Commission, therefore, gives the following directions :-

i) The appellant shall visit the office of the SPIO-Wakf Boarad Hisar at 11.00

AM on 19.12.2017 for inspection of record. The Respondent-SPIO shall make

available complete record in connection with the RTI applications namely; Appeal

Case No.8081 of 2017, Appeal Case No.8083 of 2017, RTI Applications dated

14.8.2017 & dated 19.8.2017 & one First Appeal (dated 15.12.2017) pending

with the FAA.

ii) The Respondent SPIO shall give an affidavit stating that all the record

connected with the above RTI cases/applications has been made available to the

appellant for inspection. This affidavit shall be given to the Commission as well as

the appellant. It should be clearly stated hat no record has been concealed in

these cases.

iii) The appellant shall have the right to obtain copies of those pages/record

directly related to the RTI applications/appeals. These shall be provided to him,

duly attested, by the SPIO on the same date i.e. 19.12.2017. The copies shall be

given as per provisions of the Haryan RTI Rules.

iv) In case of any non compliance, the appellant shall have the right to

approach the Commission, not later than 31.12.2017.

5. With these observations/directions, these cases are decided.


Place :Gurugram (Samir Mathur) Dated:8.12.2017 State Information Commissioner, Haryana




: Shri Gulshan Valecha s/o ShrisAda

Nanad, Plot No.17A, Shop No.17,

Khangarh Shah Junaid, Balecha

Bhojnalya, Parijaat Chowk, Railway

Road, Hisar.


: 1.SPIO-Haryana Wakf Board, Hisar.

2.FAA-Haryana Wakf Board, Ambala

Cantt-133001.




First Appeal decided on : 20.9.2017, 29.8.2017




ORDER

The Appellant is ----present. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present.

2.

3.




SCN No.1333/17 in Case No.7688/17



Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajay Kumar Bahl,Gen.Secretary,Ek

Sangharsh, H.No.1669, Sector-9,

Faridabad-121006.

Name of the Respondent : SPIO-Executive Engineer, Provincial

Divin. No.II, PWD (B&R) Branch,

Sonipat.

Cocnerned Authroty : 1.The Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt.

Haryana, PWD (B&R)

Department,Haryana, Chandigarh.

2.The Engineer-in-Chief, PWD (B&R)

Department,Haryana,Chandigarh.

RTI Application filed on : 1.3.2017

Ist Appeal decided on : No response

2nd Appeal decided on : 17.11.2017

Show Cause Notice issued on : 29.11.2017

Reply to the Show Cause Notice : No reply


Notice

: 8.12.2017


ORDER

The Appellant is present. The SPIO-Respondent is not present.


3. The Commission takes an adverse notice of the absence of the SPIO-Respondent

Executive Engineer,Provincial Division No.II, PWD (B&R) Branch Sonipat as he had been

given specific directions to be present before the Commission today and also he had

been asked to reply before 2.12.2017 in this case. As aleady noted, this is a matter of

public importance as it concerns the status as well implementation of a public road

which is alleged to have been in a state of neglect in Sonipat. This is the road between

Gannaur Railway Station and Sahapur. It is clear that the matter is being dealt by the

SPIO concerned and as the appellant has received a letter dated 23.5.2017 in which the

First Appellate Authority had asked the SPIO to furnish the information to the appellant

by 31.5.2017. It is evident that the SPIO has not only ignored the directions of the FAA

but has also shown his indifference to specific orders of the Commission which had

forced to issue a Show Cause Notice under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. In view of the Commission, this is an open act of defiance and as not only

the orders of the Commission dated 17.11.2017 had been clear, but the SCN had

also been sent on 29.11.2017 to the Respondent. He has neither replied to the SCN

nor taken any action on the Commission’s order vide which he had to provide

complete information to the appellant. This is in gross violation of the provisions

of the Act under section 20 (12) and denial and obstruction of information are

clear in this case. As such, invoking the powers under secstoin 20 (1) of the RTI

Act, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs.10000/- [ten thousand] on the

Respondent-SPIO with the directions that if he further defies the Commission,

other appropriate action as provided for under the Act shall be taken by the

Commission.

5. It is further noted by the Commission that the superior officers of this

department need to attend to the RTI Act and they cannot absolve themselves of

the responsibility of the manner in which the Act is being implemented in their

department. As such, the Commission directs that a copy of this order expressing

grave concern of the Commission at the indifference and defiance in providing

information of public interest to the appellant, be sent to the Addl. Chief Secretary

PWD (B&R) Haryana Chandigarh and the Engineer-in-Chief PWD (B&R) Haryana

Chandgiarh with the advise that they should take cognizance of the inefficiency

displayed by their SPIO namely, XEN Provincial Division No.II PWD (B&R) Branch

Sonipat. They may take suitable departmental action against the officer, if

necessary. The SPIO shall deposit the penalty amount with the Government

Treasury, not later than 31.1.2018 as per provisions of the Haryana RTI Rules

2009. The EIC PWD (B&R) shall also inform the Commission with regard to the

status of the action against the SPIO as well as provision of information to the

appellant. This shall be done before 15.1.2018.

6. If information as required is not provided to the appellant by the date

(15.1.18), the appellant shall have the right to approach the Commission by

31.1.18 when further action under law may be contemplated. In case of no

communication till 31.1.18, the case shall not be considered thereafter.




STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. 1. Appeal Case No.7416 of 2017 2.Appeal Case No.7414 of 2017 3.Appeal Case No.7415 of 2017 Name of the Appellant

: Shri Aseem Takyar, Plot No.144,

Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram-

122016.


: 1.SPIO-DGM (E) HSIIDC,Udyog Vihar,

Gurugram.

2.SPIO-Addl.General Manager HSIIDC

IMT Manesar.

3.FAA-Chief Coordinator, HSIIDC,

Sector-6, Panchkula.








ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Lalit Jora Senior Manager HSIIDC Manesasr is

present.

2. In these three cases the issue is common namely, the concern of the appellant is

that the SPIO has not provided the required information regarding Local Management

Committee (LMC) despite pursuing the matter over several months. The Commission

had obsersved in its order of 17.11.2017 that there is nothing to be hidden about

change in ownership of plot/property in a public sector run estate which had been set

up with public money and funds. The Respondent at that time had stated that separate

minutes of meetings are not being kept and that decision mandated as above, are being

taken on individual file. Today it has also been informed that individual

cases/applications are filed on-line through a well defined process.

3. Nvertheless, the Commission observes that the appellant’ requirment for

information is valid to the extent that he is asking for the end result of these meetings in

the shape of minutes. He understands that in terms of provisions of the RTI Act,

particularly, sectionn 8, commercial/trade information which may affect the economic

activity/competetiveness of the third-party need not be revealed. However, actual

information which indicates the activity of the LMC is required to be given.

4. The appellant has further stated that he would like to show the kind of

information made available to him on the same subject with regard to Udyog Vihar.

5. The reprsentative of the SPIO who has not appeared due to meeting in Panchkula

called by the MD/HSSIDC, has displayed the website of the public authority on a laptop

and has pointed out that all information regarding decision of the LMC pertaining to

transfer of plot etc were available on the website.

6. In the circumstances, when information is available on website of the HSIIDC, it

is possible to reply the specific point of information asked for by the applicant namely;

number of LMC meetings and number of cases dealt with by them, alongwith final

decision.

7. The appellant has insisted that this information be provided alongwith a

statement from the Respodent that no information has been concealed from the

website. As such, the following directions are given :-

i) The Respondent-SPIO shall provide information as specified above, to the

appellant before 28.12.2017. This shall pertain to both; Manesar as well as Udyog

Vihar.

ii) The Respondent shall also send copies of screen shot pertaining to the

website covering LMC.

7. With these observations and directions, Appeal Case Nos. 7416 of 2017, 7414

of 2017 & 7415 of 2017 are decided








122016.



Gurugram.










ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri ------------SPIO------ is present.

2.

3.



STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. Appeal Case No.7416 of 2017 Right to Information Act – under Section - 19 Name of the Appellant



122016.



Gurugram.

2.SPIO-Addl.General Manager HSIIDC

IMT Manesar.










ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Lalit Jora Senior Manager HSIIDC IMT Manesar is

present.

,however, through email he has requested for exemption in personal appearance.

------Shri Divya Kamal Addl.G.M. HSIIDC IMT Manesar-SPIO is present.

[2. There are three RTI applications filed by the appellant which relate to

information regarding decision of the Local Management Committee (LMC) of different

Estates of the HSIIDC in which matters like transfer of ownership of plot and permission

to put on lease, change in constitution etc are taken. This matter had come up before the

Commission earlier also and the SPIO concerned had then submitted that the

Association of Industrialists had objected to this information being put in the public

domain. In this connection, the SPIO for Manesar has submitted a set of papers which

also contain a letter dated 31.3.2017 addressed to the appellant in which an order has

been given in justification of with-holding the information regarding LMC. Such orders

are not on record from the SPIOs of other Industrial Estates covered by the appellant’s

application .

3. Prima-facie, the information as above, changes with regard to industrial activity in

Industrial Estates administered by the HSIIDC which is a public authority. There is

nothing to be hidden about change in ownership in a Government run/Public Sector run

Estate which has been set up to public money and funds.

4. While the Commission is of the view that a common order be issued for all the

concerned Industrial Estates with regard to the LMC information being in public

domain. It is equally important to recognize that as stated by the SPIO Manesar, no

separate minutes of meeting are being kept and decisions are being taken on file by all

the Members of the Committee. It is not relevant for the files to be made available, but

the information generated regarding decision needs to be in the public domain.

5. Nevertheless, in this case the Commission would like to take up a common

policy in view of the orders given by the SPIO. Moreover, the appellant is not

present today. Therefore, all cases relating to LMC and date to be made public

filed by this appellant or any other should be clubbed and brought up before this

Commission on 8.12.2017 at 11.30 AM in DC’s Court Room Gurugram.]








122016.


: 1.SPIO-XEN,Mewat Water Services

Division, Nuh.


Irrigation & Water Resources

Department, Panchkula.








ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Arvind Yadev Junior Engineer representative of

XEN-SPIO Water Services Sub Division Gurgaon/Division Nuh is present.

2. This appeal is on a important matter regarding encroachments on Jharsa Bund in

Gurugram. This is dated 23.3.2017. The Respondent SPIO has given replies on 1.8.2017

& 7.12.2017. The appellant has received these replies and has acknowledged that his

concerns have been met. He, however, has further queries for which he may file another

RTI.

3. In the circumstances, when the appellant has received the reply and the

respondent has stated that no other information apart from that given is available on

record of the public authority, the case is decided as closed.



STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HARYANA SCO 114-115, SECTOR 8-C, Chandigarh. 1.Appeal Case No.6343 of 2017 2.Appeal Case No.8093 of 2017 3.Appeal Case No.8094 of 2017 4.Appeal Case No.8441 of 2017 5.Appeal Case No.8442 of 2017 6.Appeal Case No.8443 of 2017 Right to Information Act – under Section - 19




122016.


: 1.Sh.Rajender T.Sharma SPIO-District Town Planner (Enforcement) Gurugram.

2.Sh.R.S.Batth SPIO-District Town Planner (Planning) Gurugram.

2.FAA-CTP o/o Director Town & Country Planning, Haryana,Chandigarh.








INTERIM-ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Narender Kumar Draftsman representative of the

DTP (Planning)-SPIO Gurugram is present.

2. The Commission expresses its serious concern in the manner in which the

SPIOs of the Town & Country Planning Department have treated the RTI Act and

its provisions by not making an appearance in cases of public importance.

3. The Commission is not inclined to proceed with the hearing in the present

circumstances. The appellant also have expressed his view that the responsible

SPIO should be present in these cases. As such, the Commission decides that these

case to come up again on 25.1.2018 at 11.30 AM in DC’s Court Room Gurugram.

The SPIOs shall be summoned by-name i.e Shri Rajender T. Sharma SPIO-D.T.P

(Enforcement)Gurugram & Shri R.S.Batth SPIO-D.T.P. (Planning) Gurugram.

4. The Commission specifically directs the SPIOs to provide the complete

information to the appellant well before the next date and, in any case, before

31.12.2017. It is made clear to the SPIOs that their non-appearance and not giving

of information shall invite strong action under the penal provisions of the Act.

5. Heard. Announced. To be communicated also.







122016.


: 1.SPIO-District Town Planner, HUDA

Complex, Sector-14, Gurugram.

2.FAA-CTP o/o Director Town &

Country Planning,

Haryana,Chandigarh.








ORDER


2.

3.








122016.





Country Planning,

Haryana,Chandigarh.








ORDER


2.

3.








122016.





Country Planning,

Haryana,Chandigarh.








ORDER

The Appellant is ----present. Shri Narender Kumar Draftsman representative of

the DTP (Planning)-SPIO Gurugram is present.

2.

3.








122016.





Country Planning,

Haryana,Chandigarh.








ORDER



2.

3.




SCN No.1571 /17 in Case No.5248/17



Name of the Appellant : Shri Jitender Kumar s/o Shri Kehar

Singh, VPO:Batodi, District Rewari.

Name of the Respondent : SPIO-cum-Deputy Director

Agriculture, Rewari.

RTI Application filed on : 21.3.2017

Ist Appeal decided on : No decision

2nd Appeal decided on : 30.8.2017

Show Cause Notice issued on : 13.11.2017

Reply to the Show Cause Notice : No reply


Notice

: 8.12.2017


ORDER

The Appellant is not present. Shri Ajay Kumar Quality Control Inspector o/o DDA

Rewari, alongwith Shri Rajender Clerk, is present.


3. Although the appellant has not made a personal appearance, he has expressed

his views at not receiving the information asked for from the SPIO. He has in his letter

dated 26.10.2017 pointed out that in response to his RTI application dated 21.3.2017,

the SPIO had asked him to deposit Rs.1500/- as copying fee. In his RTI application he

had asked for 7 point’ information covering the period 2013 to 2017 in which detailed

information had been asked for in terms of provision of subsidy on sprinkler set,

storage bin and other inputs and utilization of grants given by the State Govt. in

Agriculture/Soil Conservation and other schemes. The Respondent has given a

undefenceble response in his letter dated 11.10.2017.

4. The appellant had sent a cheque amounting to Rs.1500/- as copying fee to the

SPIO. This was receieved in the office of the SPIO on 9.10.2017. However, due to some

internal administrative constraints, the cheque could not be deposited. It was on this

account that the SPIO declined to provide the information.

5. It is very clear that the entire information had been prepared by the concerned

SPIO because he demanded Rs.1500/- only after the complete information had been

gathered. There is no doubt that the information was available and ready to be given.

There is no excuse, therefore, denying the information at any stage.

6. After discussion, the representative of the SPIO agreed that the solution to the

present situation where detailed information has been asked for, would be to conform

to the provisions of section 4 (1b) and to display the entire information asked for in the

RTI application on the website of the Agriculture Department Rewari. In this way, this

important information regarding subsidised assistance to the farmers will be made

available to the public at large and requirements of the RTI Act would also be met.

7. As such, the Commission directs the SPIO to put the required information on the

website of DDA Rewari. In case the information has not been put on the website, the

hard copy information shall be provided to the appellant. With reference to the orders

of the Commission dated 30.8.2017, it is found that the action regarding cheque receipt

etc was subsequent to the order. The appellant has already stated the position

regarding the cheque. In the present circumstances, the Commission would focus on

provisio of the information through the website or directly in hard copy, since the

willingness to pay the fee by the appellant has been established.

8. The SPIO is directed to put the entire information, as required under the

Act on the website for availability to the general public, including the appellant by

15.1.2018. If it is not done by that time, then the appellant should get the

information through appropriate hard copy. The issue of the payment by cheque

should be sorted out by the FAA, if required in a time bound manner. If hard copy

of information is to be sent, the same should be sent by 31.1.2018.

9. The Commission notes that the appellant should have appeared in the

hearing to explain the stand clearly. The orders are being passed in his absence as

he is unable to come.

10. The SPIO-DDA Rewari shall report compliance of the Commission orders by

31.1.2018 and not later. The Show Cause Notice is being kept at abeyance and may

be considered depending on the response of the SPIO in view of the controversy

regarding the cheque payment.






Name of the Appellant : Shri Krishan Kumar, VPO:Bajina,

District Bhiwani.


: 1.SPIO-XEN, Water Services Division,

Bhiwani.



Panchkula.

RTI application filed on : 9.3.17, 12.1.17

SPIO replied on : 30.3.17, 28.2.17, 1.9.17






ORDER

The Appellant is present. Shri Jitender Singh SDO-representative and Shri

Sumer Singh Ziledar o/o XEN Bhiwani Water Services Division Bhiwani are present.

2. In this case the appellant had filed his RTI application on 9.3.2017. The SPIO, as

per record, had replied on 30.3.2017, 28.2.2017 and 1.9.2017.

3. The appellant who had asked information on compensation given on account of

flooding of agriculture field by the department, had been dealt with in instalment. The

replies given to him were adequate excepting with regard to copy of the orders of the

court in the case; State of Haryana vs Dharampal and the basis for giving compensation

to the cultivator rather than the land owner.

4. Today, the Respondent stated that details of the court order had been given to

him but it was also possible for him to provide copy received by the department as per

their record. With regard to the State Policy of Compensation, copy of the Revenue

Mannual page was directed to be given to the appellant. The appellant was concerned

with the inadequacy of the Govt. Policy with regard to compensation and the effort to

ractify the same. The Commission has not found any malafide or intentional delay in the

matter and, therefore, the delayed matter is not being pursued.

5. It was pointed out by the appellant, that the name of the SPIO has not been

displayed in the office of the XEN, the Commission directs that the SPIO and the FAA to

ensure that all information required by the appellant/applicant under the RTI Act is

displayed prominently in their office. An audit of the same may be carried out by the

competent authority.

6. With these directions, the case is decided.


Sd/- Place :Gurugram (Samir Mathur) Dated:8.12.2017 State Information Commissioner, Haryana




: Shri Laxman Singh s/o Shri Bhagwana

Ram, VPO:Mandhnoli Kalan, Distt.

Bhiwani.

M:8814911345


: 1.SPIO-XEN, Uthan Waer Services

Mech.Division, Bhiwani.

2.FAA- Chief Engineer Coordination,


Panchkula.








ORDER


2. The Commission takes adverse notice of the absence of the Respondent as well as

absence of their comments on the notice under section 19 (3).

3. The appellant, who is present, has pointed out that basically he had asked for the

seniority list of operators and nothing else. On 31.8.2017, the Respondent XEN sent a

repy giving a strange answer that the operators who had been promoted and whose

senioity list has been asked for, have all retired. This answer is not acceptable because

the record pertaining to these persons was existing.

4. The appellant has brought to the notice of the Commission that the XEN has sent

a reply consisting of a seniority list which has not been attested. The appellant has

pointed out that page no.13 of the seniority list is missing.

5. As such, the Commission directs the SPIO to provide an attested seniority

list which should contain his signature and stamp. Page No.13 which is missing,

should be added.

6. This record should be given to the appellant not later than 31.12.2017.

7. If there is any non compliance, the appellant can approach the Commission

not later than 15.1.2018 after which penal action for penalty etc against the SPIO

shall be contemplated.

8. With the above directions/observations, the case is decided.




Complaint No. 904 of 2016

Right to Information Act – under Section – 19


Name of the Complainant : Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, House

No. D-194, Dabua Colony, NIT,

Faridabad.

M:8447175359.

Name of the Respondent : SPIO-Asstt. Director, ESIC Hospital &

College,Faridabad.



Date of Complaint : 17.10.2017



ORDER

The Appellant/Complainant is present. Shri Anirudh Narayan Superintendent

RTI ESIC Medical College & Hospital Faridabad is present.

2. The appellant had asked for information on the operation of the cycle stand and

other administrative aspects of ESIC Medical College & Hospital. This application was

sent on 22.3.2017 and the respondent representative has informed that reply was given

on 11.4.2017. In this complaint the complainant has claimed that correct reply has not

been given to him. And, therefore, penal acotion should be taken against the

respondent. The Commission obsersves that it is not possioble to take any view in this

matter until the appellant conveys the shortcomings of the reply, to the SPIO-

Respondent.

3. As such the Commission gives the following directions :-

i) The appellant shall send a rejoinder to the SPIO pointing out the alleged

shortcomings in his reply, by 25.12.2017.

ii) The Respondent shall give his final reply to the complainant in this respect,

not later than 10.1.2018.

iii) The respondent shall also send another copy of the letter dated 17.4.2017

to the appellant.

iv) In case the appellant is not satisfied, he shall visit the office of the SPIO-

cum-Deputy Director, by 15.1.2018.

v) The SPIO shall show the entire record for the inspection of the complaint.

vi) The above prcedure is being adopted so as to establish at the request of the

complainant whether the Respondent has given correct replies to him or not,

which is the basis of his compalint.

4. With these directions, the case is decided.






: Shri Kali Ram Naidu, House No.1363,

Sector-10, Urban Estate, Jind-126102.

M:9416253771.


: 1.SPIO-Haryana State Agricultural

Marketing Board, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.FAA o/o Haryana State Agricultural

Marketing Board, Sector-6, Panchkula.



First Appeal filed on : Nil (copy not attached)





ORDER

The Appellant is present. Ms.Sunita ADA, Shri Ashok Kumar Superintendent-

SPIO, Ms. Asha Mundan ASPIO HSAMB Panchkula are present.

2. This case had been heard on 8.11.2017 and detailed orders had been given to

the Public Authority for explaining the inconsistency in the approach adopted in having

the inquiry conducted and treating the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer as being

separate inquiry. In para 11 & 12 of the Commission order dated 8.11.2017, the

inconsistency in this regard has been brought out. It has been made clear that an inquiry

arising out of a singal cause of action has to be treated as single case irrespective of the

number of delinquents involved. In other words, it is against the principles of

administrative law to divide an inquiry arising out of the same cause of action into

independent inquiry based on each of the official involved. In the present case, the

appellant was denied access to the material connected with a number of officials who

were chargesheeted in this single inquiry because each of the same was treated as a

separate inquiry and because the appellant did not have any direct nexus with the other

persons, he was denied the information connected with the other inquiries. The

competent authority had been asked to rationalize this inconsistency in the Commission

order. This advise/direction was as per the enabling provisions of section 25 (5) of the

RTI Act according to which the Commission has the power to give directions in terms of

improvement of maintenance of record which, in turn, leads to less RTI grievances. In

this case multiplications of records was inconsistent and not necessary for providing

information to the appellant.

3. Moreover, in the last order, the Commission had observed that once an inquiry is

compelte in the sense that the competent authority has taken a final decision with

regard to accepting or rejecting the inquiry report, an inquiry report becomes a public

document. This is so because disciplinary action on the basis of the inquiry report is a

public decision i.e. communicated to all Government/departmental units which are

concerned with the department or the official. In this case, the Respondent has informed

the Commission that the official who have been found to be guilty by the competent

authority, after over-ruling of the conclusions of the inquiry officer have been issued

Show Cause Notices and have been asked to appear before the competent authority. It

is obvious that this action has been taken because the inquiry has been concluded and

there is no dispute about this. On this ground also, the appellant now deserves tobe

provided the information asked for with regard to all the remaining

officials/delinquents.

4. Therefore, while highlighting the analysis in this case as available in the

order of 8.11.2017 and above, the Commission directs the SPIO to provide the

residual information to the appellant, by 15.12.2017.

5. The Commission also observes that at the end of the hearing on 8.11.2017, the

Commission had announced that the next date of the hearing would be 1.12.2017. This

had been selected after consulting the parties. However, the finalization of the written

order took more time than expected and, therefore, a review to giving adequate time to

the parties after receipt of the notice, the date was modified to 11.12.2017. However,

the appellant and the respondents, in line with the earlier announced date of 1.12.2017

came present today and on their request, the Commission, after noting that there was

no objection to this, held the hearing today itself. This was also keeping in mind the

inconvenience that may have been caused to the parties due to their having come today

and having to come on 11.12.2017. As such, the hearing was held today and the

direction as above has been given.

6. With these observations and direcstions, the cas is decided.







Name of the Complainant : Dr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta, House

No.1722, Sector-14, HIsar-125001.

Name of the Respondent : 1.SPIO-Secretary Market Committee,

HIsasr.

2.SPIO-HSAMB, Sector-6, Panchkula






ORDER

The Appellant/Complainant is not present, however, he was contacted on his

given Mobile No.09992931181 through audio conferencing. The SPIO-Respondent is not

present.

2. In this case, the complainant has stated over audio conferencing,

supplemented by email which he has sent but is not on record just now, that no

reply has been received from the SPIO-CA/HSAMB Panchkula to whom the RTI

application was transferred under section 6 (3) by the Market Committee Hisar to

whom it had originally been addressed. This had been done on 3.8.2017. It is

seen that considerable time has elapsed since the transfer of the application and

there has been no response from the HSAMB Headquarters. This is adequate

ground for complaint and, therefore, the Commission would like to issue a Show

Cause Notice under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act to the SPIO/HSAMB Panchkula

for not responding to the complaint and also not providing any information which

is the ground for the complaint. The SPIO should respond to the complaint within

15 days of receiving this order and make a personal appearance alongwith the

reply to the complaint, reply to the Show Cause Notice and information itself, on

17.1.2018 at 11.00 AM.







Name of the Complainant : Dr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta, House

No.1722, Sector-14, HIsar-125001.

Name of the Respondent : SPIO-District Town Planner, Rohtak.






ORDER

The Appellant/Complainant is not present, however, he was contacted on his

given Mobile No.9992931181 through audio conferencing. Shri Binesh Kumar Nirman

ATP o/o DTP-Respondent Rohtak is present.

2. The complaint filed by the complainant dated 9.10.2017 was basically on the

ground that no information had been provided to him by the SPIO and that this was

despite the orders of the First Appellate Authority dated 10.10.2017.

3. The SPIO vide his letter dated 29.11.2017 has given an explanation that the RTI

application itself was not recorded in the SPIO’ register inadvertently and that it was

received finally on 27.9.2017 from the FAA. The SPIO, thereafter gave complete

information alongwith copy of documents to the complainant vide their reply dated

6.10.2017. This was observed by the FAA also in his order dated 10.10.2017.

4. The appellant conveyed over audio conferencing that he has received the

required information and was satisfied with it and did not want to pursue the complaint

any more.

5. In these circumstances, the grounds for compalint have been removed and the

complainant has also sent email in this regard as reported by him, the Commission does

not find any ground to pursue this matter and it is accordingly ordered to be filed.






: Shri Asish Asija s/o Shri N.L.Asija c/o

Shri Lalit Rishi, Kothi No.120, Sector-

4,M.D.C., Panchkula


: 1.SPIO-Superintendent o/o District &

Session’s Judge, Faridabad.

2.FAA o/o District & Session’s Judge,

Faridabad.








ORDER

This case had been fixed for hearing through video conferencing. The Appellant,

alogwith his counsel Shri Lalit Rishi, is present in the Commission’s VC Room

Chandigarh. The SPIO-Respondent is not present in the VC Room Faridabad.

2. This is a case in which based on an alleged crime, the appellant has asked for a

number of points of information. The counsel for the appellant states that the custodian

of record is the public authority of District & Sessions Judge Faridabad. As per their

application dated 22.4.2017 information about 36 points was asked and the SPIO –

Superintendent replied to the RTI application on all points. However, regarding point

No.5, the appellant was not satisfied and it is with respect to this point and the orders of

the FAA on this point, that he has come in Second Appeal.

3. The issue is that the CCTV footage reqired by the appellant which is evidene of

importance in this case, has not been made available first; on the ground that such

footge cannot be shared but largely on the ground that the same had been passed on to

the police/investigating agency. The appellant claims that the police also have indicated

to him that a footage was not received by them. As such, primafacie there is

contradiction in information obtained by the appellant from the Sessions Judge office

SPIO and the concerned Police Department SPIO.

4. Moreover, protection has been claimed for with-holding information which is a

part of criminal investigation.

5. In the circuimstances, the appellant acknowledges that under the RTI Act, he has

the option of proceeding against the concerned SPIO for providing misleading

information or incomplete information and proceed as per provisions of of law for this

violation. It is otherwise evident that the SPIOs listed in this case namely;

Superintendent o/o Sessions Judge and the FAA o/o Sessions Judge have provided the

information asked for.

6. As such, the appellant is free to exercise the above option as per provisions of

law.

7. With these observatoins, the case is decided.






: Shri Jaswant Singh Soni s/o Lt.Shri

Hardwari Lal Soni, VPO:Satnali,

Distt.Mahendergarh.


: 1.SPIO-Superintendnt o/o Director,

Prosecution, Haryana, Panchkula.

2.FAA o/o Director, Prosecution,

Haryana, Panchkula.








ORDER

This case had been fixed for hearing through video conferencing. The Appellant

is not present in the VC Room Mohindergarh. Shri Sarwan Singh Superintendent-SPIO

o/o Director Prosecution Haryana Panchkula is present in the Commission’s VC Room

Chandigarh.

2. The appellant has asked for three point’ information with regard to the role of

Public Prosecutor in criminal cases where the victim has engaged a private counsel. He

has further asked for other information as to the role of the Public Prosecutor while the

private counsel is also engaged alongwith whether the victim can provide his own list of

witnesses etc.

3. On the face of it, these points of information are in the nature of obtaining

clarifications and interpreting points of law and legal procedure. They are not in

the nature of information as defined in section 2 of the RTI Act. In fact as

mentioned in the reply of the SPIO in para 2 of the preliminary submissions that

the information sought by the appellant is in the form of legal queries which the

appellant can satisfy by reading the relevant provisions of Criminal Law Mannual

and that it is not the duty of the SPIO to satisfy queries or enhance knowledge of

the appellant as per the RTI Act. Nevertheless, for some reason the office of the

Director Prosecution transferred the RTI application of the appellant to all the

District Attorneys in the Districts. Replies were obtained from all of them on the

points given. It appears that the replies were not consistent with each other and,

therefore, the appellant on receiving the replies once again asked the SPIO

Prosecution Department to confirm as to which information sent by the DAs was

correct. This exercise, in fact, was unnecessary and the reply given on 9.5.2017 by

the SPIO seems sufficient. However, the Commission would like that the formal

reply/comments to notice under section 19 (3) sent by the SPIO dated 24.11.2017

should be sent to the appellant within the next three days. This shall constitute

the final reply .

4. With the above observations/directions, the case is decided.





Name of the Appellant : Shri Gur Lal Singh, Tehsil:Tohana,

Village:Chuharpur, Distt. Fatehabad.


: 1.SPIO o/o Addl.Chief Secreartary,

Irrigation & Water Resources,

Haryana, Chandigarh.

2.FAA o/o Addl.Chief Secreartary,

Irrigation & Water Resources,


3.SPIO-Executive Engineer, Water

Services Division, Tohana.








ORDER


is present in the Commission. Shri Dheeraj Kairon SDO & Shri Satyawan Head Revenue

Clerk Water Services Division Tohana are also present in the Commission in

Chandigarh.

2. In this appeal case, the appellant Shri Gur Lal Singh had written a letter dated

12.5.2017 to the Addl. Chief Secretary Irrigation Haryana w.r.t. Case No.7031 of 2016. In

this, he had referred to the case decidced by the Commission on 6.4.2017. He has

further informed the Addl.CS Irrigation that SPIO-XEN Water Services Division Tohana

had demanded a fee of Rs.50/- for accepting his RTI application as against the Govt.

fixed fee of Rs. 10/-. He has further stated that while Commission observed that this

demand of higher fee was against rules and that a serious view was taken against the

conduct of the SPIO concerned. The appellant, thereafter, asked the Addl.CS to take

departmental action against the SPIO-cum-XEN. Since no reply was forthcoming from

the Addl.CS, the appellant filed RTI application dated 23.6.2017 in which he wanted to

know the status of his complaint referred to above. He received no reply to this RTI

Application and he filed a First Appeal dated 30.8.2017 to the FAA of the o/o Addl.CS

Irrigation. No response was obtained on this First Appeal and he thereafter came to the

Commission in Second Appeal dated 18.10.2017.

3. The appellant did not receive any reply to this letter from the Addl.CS whereafter

he filed a First Appeal in the o/o First Appellae Authority. He did not receive any

response.

4. The main issue in the Second appeal is that the appellant has not received any

orders of the FAA against his basic query that the status of his complaint dated

23.6.2017 be given to him.

5. The Commission during the hearing, explained to him the option provided to an

appellant/complainant under the provisions of the RTI Act for removal of his grievance.

In the present case, the appellant has insisted that he would only like to have a reply to

his RTI application dated 23.6.2017 so that the position regarding his complaint dated

12.5.2017 can be conveyed to him. A notice in this regard under section 19 (3) had been

issued to the SPIO o/o Addl.CS Irrigation Haryana and to the FAA o/o Addl.CS Irrigation

Haryana. This was dated 17.11.2017 and the Respondent had been asked to send

comments on the Second Appeal filed by the appellant. Today, no one has appeared

from the Addl.CS Irrigation office, although officials from the SPIO-XEN Tohana have

come. The appellant has correctly stated that his RTI Application under consideration

relates to the Addl.CS Irrigation and is addressed to him. The SPIO-XEN Waer Servisces

Tohana does not have any connection with his RTI application, eventhough the SPIO has

been mentioned in the application.

6. Under these circumstances, the Commission is constraint to observe that

the SPIO of the office of Addl.CS Irrigation has taken nearly 5 months after the 30

days period and still not have replied to the appellant. The representatives of the

SPIO-XEN Tohana have brought to the notice of the Commission that the

correspondence conducted by the appellant, has been in the Gurmukhi script

which is not understood in the office of the SPIO-XEN Water Services Tohana. The

Commission has also observed that the letter written to the Addl.CS Irrigation is

in English. The appellant has been given the option to translate the letters written

in Gurmukhi script either to Hindi or to English and it is for him to take the

necessary action. In the present case, since there has been no reply from the SPIO

o/o Addl.CS Irrigation on any account, no explanation has been given for lack of

reply and no one has come before the Commission today despite a clear notice.

The Commission in order to find out the ground of non-reply and to give a chance

to the concerned SPIO to explain as is required under law, directs that a Show

Cause Notice under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act be issued to the SPIO for not

replying to the RTI. The reply to this should be received by 28.12.2017 and he

should personally appear on 6.2.2018 at 11.30 AM in the Commission.



Appeal Case No.6343 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8093 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8094 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8441 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8442 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8443 of 2017





122016.



Gurugram.

2.SPIO-DGM(E) HSIIDC, IMT, Manesar.










INTERIM-ORDER

















Appeal Case No.6343 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8093 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8094 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8441 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8442 of 2017 Appeal Case No.8443 of 2017





122016.



Gurugram.

2.SPIO-DGM(E) HSIIDC, IMT, Manesar.










INTERIM-ORDER



















Name of the Appellant : Shri G.C.Bansal, House No.180,Sector

18-A, Chandigarh.


: 1.SPIO-District Town Planner

(Enforcement), Gurugram.

2.FAA-Chief Town Planner o/o

Director, Town & Country Planning,









ORDER


2. The appellant has filed his RTI application to the SPIO-DTP (Enforcement)

Gurugram vide his letter dated 31.3.2017. He received no response and as a result, he

filed his First Appeal on 27.5.2017. The FAA gave his orders on 5.7.2017 in which he

clearly directed the SPIO to provide the information free of cost within 10 days and also

explain why the information had not been provided within the prescribed period. It is a

serious matter that the SPIO did not supplied the information to the appellant even after

FAA’s order and also after receiving notice under section 19 (3) of the RTI Act under the

Second Appeal, from the Commission dated 27.10.2017. The Respondent did not appear

before the Commission on 27.11.2017 which was the designated date. The case was

adjourned and fixed for today. Even now, the Respondent has neither appeared nor

provided the information as asked for to the appellant. This is a sign of repeated

irresponsibility and cannot be condoned.

3. After hearing the appellant who has shown his grievance towards the

inaction by the SPIO, the Commission gives the following directions :-

i) The SPIO-Respondent ensure that replies to the information asked for by the

appellant in his RTI is provided to him not later than 31.12.2017, by registered

mail. In fact, he should have supplied the information already and this additional

time is not as a recognition of any condonation of delay, but so that the appellant

can be provided information with all its necessary documents etc as per

provisions of the Act.

ii) In case the appellant is dis-satisfied with the reply, he shall send a

rejoinder to the Respondent by 15.1.2018 and the Respondent, in turn, if

necessary provide the final reply by 25.1.2018.

4. The defiance of the Respondent-SPIO has been described above and in the

considered opinion of the Commission he deserves to be proceeded against under

the penalty clauses of the Act. As such, a Show Cause Notice under sectionn 20 (1)

for defiance and obstruction in information may be issued to him for reply

obefore 31.12.2017 and personal presence before the Commission for hearing on

29.1.2018 at 11.30 AM.




Complaint No. 257 of 2017(1366&1367/17 in SCN 1199/17)



Name of the Complainant : Shri Rajat Sahni, C 403, Dream

Apartments, Plot No.14, Sector-

22,Dawarka, New Delhi-110077.

Name of the Respondent : 1.SPIO-DTP Hqr.) o/o Director,Town &

Country Planning, Haryana,

Chandigarh.

2.Shri Ravi Sihag, the then SPIO-DTP

(Hqr.) (Presently STP HSIIDC

Panchkula).

3.Shri S.K.Sehrawat, the then DTP

(Hqr.) o/o Director,Town & Country

Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh.


SPIO replied on : No response


Complaint decided on : 17.8.2017

SCN issued on : 31.8.17 & 3.10.17

Reply to the SCN : 17.10.17, 18.10.17



INTERIM-ORDER

The Appellant/Complainant is not present. Shri Sanjay Kumar SPIO-DTP (Hqr)

office of Director T&CP Haryana Chandigarh is present.

2. The case was fixed to review the compliance of orders given on 31.10.2017.

Primarily, the present SPIO had been directed to submit a statement/note summarizing

the facts and circumstances under which the RTI application remained unattended for

the period 16.2.2017 to August/2017. It was desired that a thorough inquiry will be

conducted by the SPIO so that all individuals who have contributed to the delay were

examined and their statement recorded on oath. In particular as had been revealed, the

Planning Assistant shall be asked to give statement regarding his responsibility. Any

other relevant statement shall also be recorded and the note submitted.

3. The officers who had not submitted reply to the Show Cause Notices were also

required to do so. This included the presnt SPIO.

4. Shri Sanjay Kumar present SPIO submitted that he had prepared a detailed reply

to the Show Cause Notice in which he has also quoted the replies of Shri Sihag and Shri

Hitesh Sharma. All of whom had remained SPIOs during this period. On examining his

reply, the Commission found that this did not constitute the note which had been asked

to be prepared.

5. The SPIO admitted that he had not taken the statements as required and also that

he would like to give the detailed report as mentioned, as that time he had not been very

clear.

6. The case now to come up on 15.1.2018 at 11.30 AM.






: Shri F.C.Gupta, Retired E.O.-cum-

Secretary, House No.24, Sector-15

(Part-I), Second Floor,Gurugram.


: 1.SPIO-cum-Superintendent (Admn),

HSAMB, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.FAA-Administrative Officer, HSAMB,









ORDER


is present in the VC Room in Gurugram. The SPIO-Respondent is not present.

2. This Second Appeal is filed against the orders of sthe First Appellate Authorityh

given on 5.9.17. Vide his RTI Applicaton dated 8.4.17, the applicant had asked fosr

information regarding two complaints he had filed against Shri Kali Ram Naidu and Shri

Zile Singh. He had wanted to know the status of the action taken on the complaints.

Besides this, he had also found that there was alleged violatin in applying orders of sthe

Hon’ble High Court to the matter of giving benefit.

3. The FAA had found that the applicsotn lacked specific foicus and it was not

possible togive specific answers. After hearing the ppelant, the Commission gives the

following direcotins :-

i) The SPIO shall give complete information on the status regarding t he

twocomplaints filed by the appellant.Specifically, he shall inform whether an imnquiry

offsicer has been appointed and if so, what is his name. The current status of the inqyiry

started shall also be given by 31.12.2017.

ii) The appellant wanted to know the manner in which the public authority was

defending the case iin the High Court. The SPIO shall inform him of the fat that the

casecocenred ois being defended and the status of the case. Particularly, with regard to

whether it is being defended or not ?

iii) The Commisson has also allowed inspecston of the coincerned document lying in

the concenrd office of the HSAMB. IN case the appellant wants to purseue the

documents and take copies, he maydosoby constacinting the SPIO. This should be done


iv) The appellant can appraocj the Commisosn by 15.1.2018 in case is he is not

satisfied.

3. With the above obsevations/directions, the case is decided.






: Shri Ishwar Singh Accountant o/o

DMEO, Haryana State Agrl.Marketing

Board, Bhiwani.













ORDER


is present in the VC Room Bhiwani. The SPIO-Respondent is not present.

2. The appellant’s main grievance was that he had not been provided a copy of the

inquiry report with which he was concerned. He had wanted some other documents

which are an essential part of the inquiry report including an affidavsit.

3. As oer the princip;les followed oin the RTI Act, an inoquiry report once the mtter

contained in the inquiry is finalkized, becomes a public document.However, when it is

not in a state of finalization and the competent authority has niot taken a final decisoi, it

cannot be considered a public document and would be covered under the protectin

clauses.

4. IN the presnt case the appelamnt himself is one of the oifficials against the

inoquiyr has been conducdsted. As scuh he is very much a interested party and has a

right to know the fagte of othe inquiry. After discussion, the commission givbes the

follwiong direcotns :-

i) The SPIO shal examine the request of the appellant to havbe copy of the iquiory

report oiin whivch he himself figures. If the inquiry report has reached a fional stage i.e.

if the competent authoirioty has taken a finalk decision on the inquiry report and action

on the iinquiry report as such is complete, then a copy of the oinquiry report alongw th

relevant anneures shall be provided to the appellant who is a concernd person.

Iis) the SPIO shall imform the appelant by 31.12.17 wheter the iR is compelte and

shall provide a coipyu thereof once it has attained finality and has been decided upon by

the co9mpetent authoiriuty.

5. With these directions, the case ois decided.






: Shri Naresh Batra, House No.26/27,

Shri Om Complex (behind Main Post

Office), Hisar.






Concerned Authority : Chief Administrator, HSAMB Sector-6,

Panchkula.


SPIO replied on : 7.9.2017, 1.9.2017



Date of Second Appeal : Nil



ORDER


is present in the VC Room Hisar. The SPIO-Respondent is not present.

2. The appellant vide his RTI app dated 8.7.17 has raised a number of points of

information regarding cold storage, packed houses etc. Originally he had asked 6 point

question which were replied to by the SPIO-HSAMB Panchkula vide his letter dated

1.9.2017. For point Nos 1,2,3 photocpies had been given. With regard to point No. 4 to 6,

no reply had been given as either the SPIO was not concerned with it or he ahd asked

foir information from the field offices.

3. After discussion today, the appellant stated that hw would be satisfied if

information asked vide point No.6 was provided to him. He drops the other questions

namel 4&5. The point number 6 is very detailed an comprehensive and consists a

number of separate questiomks. The appellant clarified that he was basicallhy

interested in having some specific details regirindg running of Govt cold stores. He

himself has taken one on hire.

4. Whiel the Commission onbsersves that the number of questokns was very larg

and would be tiome consuming, the appellant said that he would be satisfied if he could

see the relevant record in the HSAMB office sothat he could retain the information

relevant to him.

5. In view of the above, the Commisoisn direcsts that the SPIUO HSAMB Panchkula

shall make availbele alol record concerning establ,ishingmen,

running,monitoriong,funding,rental and ootiher details of cold storage pack houses etc

to the. appellant on a day chnosed withn mutual agreement between 1.1.18 to 7.1.18.

The SPIO shall be personally responsible for identifying the record/files, specially those

from which the Government cold storage programme is being monitored and provide

them to the appellant for inspection. The appellant shall inspect the record/documents

and will be entitle to obtaining attested photocopies on payment as per Haryana RTI

Rules 2009. The SPIO is further directed that the appellant should be given reasonably

coinfortable facility for examinisng the record and obtaing copoies as above. The

appelalmt will have the right to repot non compliance if any of commisokm orders but


6. decided.



state information commissioner, haryana sco 114...

Documents