grahakjago.comgrahakjago.com/rti/doc/Complaint Case N… · Web view · 2016-01-28STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB. SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054

Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sadhu Ram Kusla,S/o Sh. Ram Chand,H. No. 138, Veer Colony,Maharaja Aggarsen Road,Bathinda ..…Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,O/o The Vice Chancellor,Punjab Tech. University,Kapurthala Road,Jalandhar ..…Respondent

Complaint Case No. 466 of 2015

ORDERThe Judgment in the instant Complaint case was reserved vide order dated 07-10-2015.

The facts of instant case are as below:-i) The present complaint was moved to the State Information Commission, Punjab (hereinafter as Commission only), by Sh. Sadhu Ram Kusla against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar, on 28-01-2015.

ii) Sh. Kusla moved this complaint under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter Act only) after he failed to get any response or got unsatisfactory response from the PIO concerned of the PTU in response to the queries, which he has raised in his application moved to PIO on 12-11-2014 under the Act.

iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of A. N. Island, A. P., Bihar and Assam States. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.

iv) Sh. Kusla after having failed to get the requisite information against his request from the PIO concerned moved a complaint on 28-01-2015 and the same was received in the Commission through dairy number 2852 on 04-02-2015.

http://www.infocommpunjab.com/

-2-

v) In the complaint, he made prayer that Commission must issue an order to the PIO/APIO to supply him the required information without any delay and information should be duly attested. He also made prayer that Rs. 60/-, which had been sent alongwith the application to the PIO, should be refunded to him.

vi) The other prayer, which he also made in the compliant, is connected with the fact that a penalty to the tune of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) per day be imposed on the PIO of the PTU for denying him the information sought for by him when the same information was readily available with the PIO concerned.

vii) Taking the cognizance of the complaint of Sh. Kusla, the Commission issued a notice under the Act to the parties concerned including the PIO of PTU directing them to join/associate with the proceedings of this complaint case, before the Commission.

viii) During the first hearing of this case before the bench of undersigned, held on 31-03-2015, Sh. Kusla submitted that he had sought for information to expose/unveil a scam pertaining to the bungling made in collection of examination fee, admission fee, income tax and service tax from different learning centers of Punjab Technical University, running in different states of the Country. He also submitted that total scam, which has taken place with the connivance of authorities concerned and the people, who were running those centers, is worth about Rs. 500 Crores.

ix) He submitted that he had also sent an envelope, duly stamped, to the PIO concerned for getting the requisite information sought for by him in his RTI request. He had also sent the amount of Rs. 15/- to the PIO in lieu of the fee of information.

x) He also submitted that he had also sent a written offer to the PIO that he will be depositing the additional fee for getting the requisite information, whenever the same will be demanded by the PIO concerned from him.

xi) He submitted that as the PTU authorities have already admitted that in nine learning centers, the total worth of scam is more than Rs. 17 lakhs. Again the PTU authorities revised that amount of scam by claiming that the total amount of scam is not Rs. 17 lakhs, but it is more than Rs. 36 lakhs. The PTU authorities again came out with the revised estimate and admitted that total worth of scam is about Rs. 96 lakhs.

xii) He also submitted that he could have established the fact that hundreds of crores of rupees have been siphoned off by the PTU authorities concerned in connivance with those people, who have been running these learning centers in different states of the country, if he managed to get information against the queries of his RTI request.

-3-

xiii) Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar, PTU, who appeared on behalf of the Sh. Kishore Luthra, Assistant Registrar-cum-PIO, PTU, in first hearing, held on 31.03.2015, stated that the information would be supplied to the Sh. Kusla, as per official record and in the same format, in which format it existed on record, within five weeks from that day.

xiv) He also mentioned that Sh. Kishore Luthra, Assistant Registrar, PTU, Jalandhar, was PIO in this case. Again he claimed, during the hearing, held on 09-06-2015, that Sh. Luthra was PIO in this case. He has also given written statement in this regard.

xv) On the next date of hearing, held on 07-05-2015, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar, PTU, who was present alongwith Sh Piyush Khanna, Advocate, submitted that information had been sent to Sh. Kusla through registered post on 07-05-2015 itself.

xvi) As Sh. Kusla was absent from the hearing, held on 07-05-2015, he was advised to point out the deficiencies in the information supplied to him to the respondent PIO and PIO was directed to remove the same.

xvii) During the hearing, held on 09-06-2015, Sh. Kusla submitted that he got the bunch of pages, weighing about one kilogram, from the Additional State Public Information Officer (Nodal Officer), PTU and he found that whatever information, which had been sent to him, was irrelevant and did not match with the queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xviii) He submitted that he had written a letter in this regard to the respondent PIO concerned on 14.05.2015 through registered post.

xix) He also pleaded that instead of supplying the requisite information to him, the respondent PIO/his representatives had sent him irrelevant information by spending lot of money on the same exercise and hence they had wasted funds of the PTU, which could have been used for meaningful purposes. He also pleaded that scam of PTU must be probed by State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab.

xx) Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar-cum-APIO, who appeared on behalf of the respondent PIO, stated that a DVD and a bunch of pages were sent to Sh. Kusla through registered post separately.

xxi) He kept on insisting that requisite information has been supplied to Sh. Kusla but failed to prove that as to how and as to when requisite information has been supplied to Sh. Kusla, when he was asked to prove the same in the hearing on that day.

-4-

xxii) A show cause was issued to Sh. Luthra under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act that as to why penalty be not imposed upon him for willful delay/denial in supplying the information to the RTI applicant and why the compensation be not awarded to the information-seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

xxiii) In addition to his submission, the PIO was also given an opportunity for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty.

xxiv) On the next hearing, held on 15-07-2015, Sh. Kusla alleged that the respondent PIO concerned had not made compliance of the order of the Commission made on 09.06.2015. He stated that whatever information had been supplied to him till that day was wrong and not according to the queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xxv) He stated that wrong information was supplied to him despite the fact that he had explained to the authorities concerned about the kind/type of information sought for him, during his meeting with officers/officials concerned on 15.06.2015 at PTU Campus, Jalandhar. He stated that he was called to PTU campus by the respondent PIO concerned and Director, Distant Education of PTU, Jalandhar, to discuss the issue personally.

xxvi) On this Sh. Piyush Khanna, Advocate, stated that some sort of communication gap had developed between Sh. Kusla and the respondent PIO concerned regarding the information, to be supplied as per queries raised by Sh. Kusla in his RTI request. He requested in writing vide letter dated 15.07.2015 that one more opportunity be given so that issue could be resolved and relevant information could be supplied to the information seeker to his satisfaction.

xxvii) During the hearing on 12-08-2015, Sh. Luthra, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Parvesh Aspal, Assistant Registrar-cum-SPIO (accounts), PTU, submitted their respective written statements. However, Sh. Luthra did not file any reply against the show cause issued to him.

xxviii) On 03-09-2015, Sh. Luthra stated before the Commission that the requisite information had already been supplied to Sh. Kusla.

xxix) Sh. Kusla, however, expressed his dissatisfaction over the information supplied to him and pointed out that he had not received complete information in connection with Learning Centers Code (L C Code) and name of the stations as per queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xxx) On this the respondent PIO concerned was directed to submit a reply clarifying the fact that as to whether information in connection with L C Code and station name was available in the official record or not. If the required information was not available in official record, the

-5-

respondent PIO would file an affidavit stating that the requisite information was not available in office-record or was missing.

xxxi) During this hearing, Sh. Luthra submitted a reply, dated 28-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit signed by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar. He also submitted another reply, dated 21-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit signed by Sh. Parvesh Aspal, AR/SPIO (Accounts). He also submitted a reply, dated 28-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit, to the show cause issued to him.

xxxii) On the next date of hearing, held on 07-10-2015, Sh Luthra placed a written submission on the record despite the fact that he was asked to file an affidavit to the effect that as to whether information in connection with L C Code and station name was available in the official record or not and if the required information was not available in official record, then he was bound to make statement that the requisite information was not available in office-record or has gone missing.

xxxiii) Apart from the submissions made by the officers concerned of PTU, as mentioned above, in this case, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar and Sh. Parvesh Aspal, Assistant Registrar also submitted their written statements and affidavits.

xxxiv) Sh. Kusla made a detailed written submission, which was received in the Commission through dairy number 23943, dated 16-09-2015.

xxxv) The submission of Sh. Kusla is reproduced as below:-

“Respectfully submitted that above mentioned complaint case has been fixed for 07.10.2015 at 11.00 AM before before Sh. Chander Parkash, Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. In this regard following submissions are made :-

1. 31.03.2015The Hon’ble Commission was informed by the undersigned that this information is required to expose/ unveil a scam pertaining to the bungling made in collection of examination fee, admission fee, Income Tax and Service Tax from different learning centers of Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, running in different states of the Country. It was also submitted that total scam, which has taken place with the connivance of authorities concerned and the people, who are running those centers, is about Rs 500 Crores. SPIO PTU Jalandhar assured the Hon’ble Commission that information will be supplied as per official record, within 5 weeks i.e. up to 05.05.2015.

-6-

The case was adjourned for 07.05.2015

2. 07.05.2015APIO alongwith his Advocate informed the Hon’ble Commission that requisite

information has already been sent to the applicant (undersigned) through registered post today itself i.e. 07.05.2015 . A copy of the postal receipt was taken on record by the Hon’ble Commission.

As the undersigned was not present due to some reasons, the Hon’ble Commission advised the undersigned to confirm whether the information has been received or not and also advised to point out deficiencies in the information supplied in writing to the PIO and PIO was directed to remove the same before the next date of hearing.


14.05.2015Vide my letter no. PTU/RTI/15/1263 Dated 14.05.2015 PIO, PTU was informed that required information has not been sent to the undersigned and copies of prospectus has been sent under Registered Cover which were never demanded . A copy of this letter was also sent to the Hon’ble State Information Commission, Punjab.

04.06.2015Assistant Director, PTU vide letter no. PTU/DDE/12324 Dated 04.06.15 informed the undersigned that information relating to September 2005 to March 2014 for all States has been sent through CD/DVD. From this you can get detail through filter. Copies of prospectus have been sent so that you may know the course fee for IT and Non IT courses. Details of learning centres such as Location / Address / Contact nos is also available.

3. 09.06.2015The Hon’ble Commission was requested by the undersigned that PIO respondent has not made compliance of the orders of the Bench made on 31.03.2015 . On 31.03.2015 PIO had submitted that information would be supplied as per official record and that too in the same format, in which form it exists on record, within five weeks and on 7.5.2015 it was informed that information has been sent through registered post . But after getting the bunch of pages , weighing about one kilogram , from the SPIO PTU Jallandhar, it was found that whatever information has been sent to the undersigned , is irrelevant and do not match with the queries raised by the undersigned in my RTI request. Hon’ble State Information Commission was also requested to take penal

-7-

action against PIO concerned and suitable compensation was also demanded. A request was also made to lodge FIR and that scam, which have taken place , must be probed by the State Vigilance Bureau . Representative of PIO tried his best to satisfy the Hon’ble Commissioner but he failed to prove that as to how and as to when requisite information has been supplied to the undersigned. Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act show cause notice was issued to Mr Kishore Luthra. Copies of these orders were sent to various authorities of PTU and Chief Director VB Pb. Case was adjourned for 15th July 201515.06.2015

A request was received from PTU and undersigned visited PTU on 15.06.2015. Detailed discussion was held with PIO (Nodal) PIO (Accounts) in the presence of Director, Distance Education regarding RTI applications. It was informed that data regarding admission fee applicable to each student is not available. It was also informed that consolidated data regarding each Learning Centre is available as the same was prepared at the time of deducting TDS. The undersigned agreed and requested the PIO to supply date of LCs as per record maintain in the Accounts Branch showing LC, Name of LC, number of students, fee deposited etc .

08.07.2015 PDF and Excel files relating to period 2007-08 to 2011-12 were sent through email and it was also informed that original CD has been sent by speed post.

09.07.2015PIO was informed by the undersigned through email that information contained in these attachments is neither demanded by the undersigned nor related to the undersigned. This information is relating to Medical / Professional Colleges. A request was made to send me the required information.

13.07.2015The matter was discussed by PIO Mr Luthra and it was informed through email that I have gone through the hard copies as well as CD sent by your goodself but there is no record regarding computer learning centre opened under Distance Education Programme of PTU. They were again requested to supply me the required information.

-8-

4. 15.07.2015The Hon’ble Commission was informed that the PIO has not made compliance

of the orders of the Commission and whatever information has been supplied till today is wrong and not according to the queries raised by the undersigned. It was also requested that the undersigned explained to the authorities of PTU concerned about the information sought for on 15.06.2015 at PTU Campus , Jallandhar but relevant information is not being supplied . A request was made to take penal action against the respondent PIO concerned as he shown disrespect to the orders of the Hon’ble Commission on one hand and on the other he has violated the provisions of the RTI Act which was enacted to bring transparency in the functioning of the public authority to curb corruption. Sh Piyush Khanna, Advocate on behalf of PIO PTU requested the Hon’ble Commission that some sort of communication gap has developed between the complainant and PIO concerned .He requested to give one more opportunity in this case so that issue could be resolved and relevant information could be supplied to the information seeker to his satisfaction. One more opportunity was given . Case was adjourned to 12th August 2015.10.08.2015 6 Files containing 1723 pages relating to TDS deducted from the year 2005-06 to 2011-12 and one CD /DVD supplied . It was also informed that no other information relating to these cases is available as per record.

5. 12.08.2015The undersigned was not able to attend Hon’ble Commission’s hearing and

prior written request was made .SPIO Nodal and SPIO Accounts submitted their written submissions . Mr Luthra

had not submitted his reply to the show cause issued to him on 09.06.2015. All SPIOs were directed to resubmit their respective replies in the shape of an affidavit and also explain the fact that as to when complete information , according to queries raised by the applicant has been given to him or not. If not, then they will have to explain as to why requisite / complete information has not been given and they will clarify these things into their respective affidavits.

The case was adjourned to 3rd September 2015.

6. 03.09.2015Hon’ble Commission was requested that 6 files containing 1723 pages have

been supplied . Besides this one CD/DVD containing information regarding

-9-

consolidated TDS deducted has been supplied and one CD/DVD showing functional and non functional LCs has been supplied. But in the information contained in 1723 pages LC code has not been mentioned and in CD/DVD in which consolidated TDS deduction information has been supplied LC code is missing. There are majority of entries which are not approved LCs of PTU and name of some private persons have been included which were never demanded by the undersigned .

The SPIO Accounts PTU failed to clear the discrepancies pointed out by the undersigned.

On request of SPIO Accounts and his advocate one more opportunity was given.

Case adjourned to 07-10-2015.

7. From the above it is very much clear that information which was required to be supplied within 30 days as per RTI act has not been supplied even elapse of about 300 days. Even on 31.03.2015 SPIO assured the Hon’ble Commission to supply the required information within 5 weeks i.e. upto 05.05.2015 but after elapse of 36 weeks required information has not been supplied so far.

Hon’ble Commission is humbly requested to:-(i) take penal action/ penalty against PIO concerned (ii) suitable compensation may also be awardedThanking you,

Submitted by :-

Bathinda (Sadhu Ram Kusla)

Dated: 08-09-2015”

XXXVI) In an earlier submission, made in the Commission on 18-05-2015, Sh. Kusla claimed that PIO had informed the Bench during the hearing on 07-05-2015 that required information had been sent to him despite the fact that only photocopies of the prospectus were sent to him under registered cover, which was never demanded by him. He also produced the same before the Commission for its perusal

XXXVII) Sh. Kusla also informed that Bench that a discussion had been held with the PIO and his representatives in the PTU campus and they were informed about the kind/type of the information sought for by him, while the hearing of the instant complaint case was continuing in the Commission. He has also placed a written submission in this regard.

-10-

XXXVIII) Through another written submission, dated 03-09-2015, which has also been placed on record, Sh. Kusla informed the Bench that information supplied to him by PIO (Nodal) and SPIO (Accounts) is not according to his application and letter.

XXXIX) Yet through another written submission, dated 07-10-2015, Sh. Kusla informed the Bench that PIO, PTU, had supplied him hardcopy and CD relating to the data of month of September 2012. In this information Learning Centre (LC) code was available and he has also been informed by the PIO that prior to September 2012, LC code was not mentioned.

XL) He also informed the Bench that earlier he was given six files on 13-08-2015, which were containing the data from September 2005 to March 2012. And it was written by the PIO (Accounts) that no more data is available. In these files the data for September 2012 was also supplied in which the LC code was not mentioned.

XLI) He informed that in prospectus issued by PTU for 2005-2006 LC codes were mentioned and every transaction/fee deposit was being done against this LC code.

XLII) He informed that it clearly showed that PTU authorities were not supplying the record/information, which was available with them. He added that in one of the responses given by the PIO concerned, the information pertaining to LC code was supplied and in one of the other responses given by the respondent PIO concerned regarding the same RTI request, no information regarding LC code was supplied on the pretext that it was not available on record.

XLIII) He claimed that admission of Sh Luthra in his written submission made on 7.10.2015 that information in connection with LC code was partially available regarding the month of September 2012 is strong proof of the fact that incomplete information was supplied to him at the first instance.

XLIV) He added that section 7 (1) of the Act reads as “Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9..”

XLV) He asked when section 7 (1) of Act bounds the PIO for supplying of information to information seeker within one month, after the receipt of the request in that regard, then as to why he has not been supplied the complete information, which was in the custody of the PIO, when he moved his request under the Act, within stipulated period.

-11-

XLVII) Sh. Kusla alleged that information regarding LC code was withheld from him deliberately. If the information was in existent at the time, when he moved his RTI request, then as to why it was not given to him by the respondent PIO concerned. He claimed that a ‘motive’ was behind the denial of information and that motive was connected with the fact that respondent PIO concerned was helping the PTU authorities to make a ‘cover up’ of the scam, which has taken place due to connivance of PTU authorities and a section of those private entrepreneurs, who were given permission to run the learning centers under distance education programme of PTU.

XLVIII) He claimed that in the list, which he has attached with his RTI request, the LC code has been mentioned in the second column. The LC codes, mentioned in the list attached by him, were same LC codes, which were mentioned in the prospectus of the PTU.

XLIX) He claimed that respondent PIO can’t take an excuse that LC codes were not available with him when the same were mentioned in the prospectus of PTU, which were sold to candidates, who were aspirant to get admission in different streams of the PTU.

L) On the issue, Sh. Luthra has admitted in his written submission made on 07-10-2015 that initially the LC code for month of September 2012 was not given by SPIO (Accounts) and Now, the same had been provided by the department concerned (Accounts department)

LI) He also claimed that earlier LC codes were not demanded by the Complainant in his letter dated 15-06-2015. The letter had been given by the complainant during his visit in the campus.

LII) He claimed that LC codes to the complainant were given as per direction given vide order dated 03-09-2015.

LIII) After hearing the parties concerned on the issue connected with the fact that incomplete information was given to Sh Kusla by the respondent PIO concerned as Sh Kusla was not given information regarding LC codes despite the fact that some information, which was denied to Sh Kusla, was in custody of respondent PIO when Sh. Kusla moved his request under RTI..

LIV) I have given thoughtful consideration to all the facts brought before the Bench by the parties concerned on the above mentioned issue and have reached the conclusion that when Sh Kusla has attached a list of learning centers (LC)with their respective codes alongwith his request under RTI Act then as to why the respondent PIO concerned did not supply him complete information.

-12-

LV) The respondent PIO has admitted that partial information was available with the PTU authorities when Sh. Kusla moved his request. However, PIO has failed to explain that as to why Sh Kusla was not given the same.

LVI) The Section 7 (1) of Act reads as “Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9….”

LVII) The plain reading of the Section 7 (1) makes it clear that PIO was bound to supply information within 30 days of the receipt of request.

LVIII) However, the respondent PIO has failed to act as per provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Act.

LIX) Moreover, Section 18 (1) of Act reads as “ Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;

LX) On inquiry of this complaint, it has been found that the excuses/ reasoning, which have been put before the Bench by the respondent PIO on this issue, is not acceptable and the PIO has been found lacking in fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to him in the capacity of PIO under RTI Act. The respondent PIO has supplied incomplete information to complainant with malafide intention.

LXI) The second issue, which has emerged in the instant case, is that in the written submission made on 07-10-2015, Sh. Luthra claimed that present RTI was marked to the department concerned PIO under section 5 (4) of Act within the prescribed time.

-13-

LXII) On this issue, Sh. Kusla claimed that though Sh Luthra claimed that RTI application, which was received on 17.11.2014, was marked to SPIO (DDE) PTU, Jalandhar, on 25.11.2014, he (Sh. Luthra) has failed to place any document regarding this claim made by him on record.

LXIII) He claimed that the letter written on behalf of SPIO ( Nodal Officer), PTU to SPIO (DDE) on 5.12.2014 has been placed on record by Sh. Luthra as Annexure ‘ B’ alongwith the reply made by him through an affidavit, dated 28.8.2015.

LXIV) In that letter, the officer concerned, who has written on behalf of Sh Luthra, has directed the SPIO (DDE) that to treat the right to information application carefully on urgent basis and supply the satisfactory reply/ information within 2 days (48 hours). In that letter it has not mentioned that that letter was being written to SPIO (DDE) under Section 5(4) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

LXV) Even in the reminder, made to SPIO (DDE) on 03.03.2015 , Sh Rakesh Sood , Additional SPIO (Nodal) had not mentioned that assistance of SPIO (DDE) had been sought under section 5 (4) of the Act.

LXVI) Similarly, in another reminder written by SPIO (Nodal) to the SPIO( DDE) on 27-03-2015, it was not mentioned to SPIO (DDE) that his assistance was being sought for supply the requisite information to information seeker.

LXVII) He claimed that the Section 5 (4) says that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.

LXVIII) The Section 5 (5) provides that any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

LXIX) He claimed that from the letters, placed on record by Sh. Luthra, it has become clear that Sh. Luthra had not written letter to SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (accounts) under Section 5 (4) of the Act for discharge of their duty as per Act and hence both SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) could not be treated as PIOs.

LXX) He also claimed that It had also become apparent that such letter and reminder had been written to SPIO (DDE) by Additional SPIO (Nodal), PTU. Moreover, Sh. Luthra had not claimed in his status report/ affidavit the he was not SPIO in this case. He had not claimed

-14-

in his status report/affidavit that he had sought assistance from any officer under Section 5 (4) to supply the requisite information to Sh. Kusla.

LXXI) He also brought into the notice of the Bench the fact that Sh. Luthra claimed that he had sought for assistance under Section 5 (4) from the PIOs of department concerned, only in the written submission, which Sh. Luthra made before the commission on 07-10-2015.

LXXII) He also brought into the notice of the Bench that in the Annexure B, annexed alongwith the affidavit of Sh. Luthra, it is clear that reminder by Additional SPIO (Nodal Officer), on behalf of SPIO (Nodal) has been written to SPIO (distance) only and not to SPIO (Accounts). It has also become clear that a copy of this reminder was sent to Appellate Authority and Registrar and not to the information seeker.

LXXIII) He also informed the bench that a letter was written by additional SPIO (Nodal Officer) to both SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) only on 3/3/15. A copy of this letter was sent to Registrar and not to him again. He added that another letter by Additional SPIO was written to SPIO (DDE) on 27/3/2015 and a copy of same was sent to Registrar and not to him.

LXXIV) He asserted that in view of the facts mentioned in para number LXII to LXXIII, Sh Luthra should not be allowed to take escape route by taking refuge under the excuse that he had invoked Section 5 (4) of the Act and brought Sh Rajinder Kumar and Sh Aspal into loop to supply requisite information to him (Sh. Kusla).

LXXV) On this issue, after giving thoughtful consideration, I am of the considered view that Sh. Luthra has failed to invoke Section 5 (4) of the Act as it could be established from the contents of the letters/status report and affidavit placed by him on record. He has mentioned that he has used section 5 (4) in this case only in his written submission made on 07-10-2015.

LXXVI) However, he has failed to explain that as to how he did not mention the use of section 5 (4) of the Act in the letter written on his behalf to SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts).

LXXVII) Hence, I hold that Sh. Luthra ‘must not’ be allowed to take this excuse to escape the liabilities of the Act, which he is bound to face in the instant case he is found guilty of denying information or supplying incomplete information to Sh. Kusla.

-15-

LXXVIII) The third issue, which has emerged, is connected with the facts that contents of status report/affidavit and written submissions of Sh. Luthra are self explanatory and are enough proof to establish the fact that Sh. Luthra had deliberately denied information to him.

LXXIX) The contents of status report of Sh. Luthra are as below:

“Vide order dated 09.06.2015, the Hon’ble Commission directed the undersign to file a status report regarding action taken by him on the RTI alongwith supporting documents as per official record. The same is submitted before the Hon’ble Bench for kind perusal.

LXXX) The chronology of the steps so taken by the undersigned as SPIO (Nodal) is as follows:-

a) On 21/11/14 an RTI application was receivedb) On 25/11/14 the same has been marked by SPIO (NODAL) TO SPIO (DDE) to provide reply c) On 5/12/14 one reminder had also been sent by SPIO (NODAL) to SPIO (DDE) to provide reply to RTI application;d) On 17/12/14 Sh Rajinder Kumar, AR/SPIO (DDE) vide letter no. PTU/DDE/11368 dated 17.12.2014 had written to applicant to attend his office to discuss different complaints and above mention RTI’se) On 2/3/15 a copy of complaint filed before the State Information Commission has been received;f) On 3/3/15 the same has been marked by SPIO (NODAL) to SPIO (DDE) to provide reply;g) On 27/3/15 one more reminder had also been sent to SPIO (DDE);h) On 31/3/15 Sh Rajinder Kumar, SPIO (DDE) was deputed by Registrar-cum- FAA to attend hearing in above case;i) On 6/5/15 the reply as provided by SPIO (DDE) alongwith CD containing data of 17 lacs students approx and copy of DEP prospectus showing fee of different courses and addresses of LCs vide ref no. PTU/DDE/1275 dated 5/5/15 which was send to complainant vide letter no.PTU/RTI/N-5330 dated 6/5/2015;j) On 7/5/15 Sh Rajinder Kumar, SPIO (DDE) was deputed by Registrar-cum-FAA to attend hearing in above case;k) On 18/5/15 the letter was received from complainant regarding the deficiency in information;l) On 27/5/15 the same was sent to SPIO (DDE) alongwith orders of SIC.

-16-

m) On 4/6/15 the reply regarding clarifications on information supplied was sent to complainant by SPIO (DDE);n) On 9/6/15 Sh Rajinder Kumar SPIO (DDE) was deputed by Registrar-cum- FAA to attend hearing in above case; The same are annexed as Annexure (Colly).

LXXXI) Thereafter on account of non satisfaction of the applicant regarding the information received, a meeting was held in the office of Registrar to discuss RTI cases filed by Sh Sadhu Ram Kusla and on 15/6/2015 during his visit to University, the applicant pointed out the information so required by him in the RTI.

LXXX) Subsequently, the same was forwarded on 16/6/15 to concerned SPIO ( Accounts) and on 26/6/15 the information as provided by Sh. Parvesh Aspal, SPIO (Accounts) vide ref no. 1789 dated 26/6/15 in 6 files having 1723 pages have been send to complainant vide letter PTU/RTI/ N/3667 dated 26/6/15.”

LXXXII) The other written submission of Sh. Luthra is reproduced as below:

“I, Kishore Luthra Assistant Registrar-cum-SPIO (Nodal) craves the indulgence of this Comm. to place on record following documents:-

1) Circular of meeting dated 11.6.15 issued by the Registrar;2) Minutes of meeting dated 12.06.153) Letter of complainant dated 15.6.154) Minutes of meeting dated 15.6.155) Receiving of cheque6) Receiving of information in case under consideration dated 26.6.157) Receiving of CD in the CC No 470 dated 8.7.15 (2 CDs)8) Receiving of letter dated 10.8.15 wherein he was intimated that no information other than supplied is available on record by SPIO Accounts.9) Receiving of letter dated 10.8.15 vide which CD has been supplied and further intimated by SPIO (DDE) no other information is available.”

LXXXIII) The contents of affidavit filed by Sh. Luthra are reproduced below:-1. That it is respectfully submitted that the deponent officer hold the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Commission in the highest esteem as an article of faith and justice and would never violate or disobey any directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission, intentionally and unintentionally. However, an unconditional apology is submitted to this Hon’ble Commission, for inadvertent lapse resulted in the submission of present reply on the part of the deponent.

-17-

2. That the deponent, at the outset, submits the list of SPIOs appointed for different departments since 12.11.2014. The same is annexed as Annexure A3. That the present short affidavit is being filed by the deponent being the SPIO, DDE, PTU to bring out the proceedings initiated to deal with the RTI application in question before the Hon’ble Commission and craves the leave of this Hon’ble Commission to file any additional reply as may be necessary or so directed by the Hon’ble Commission.4. That at the outset it is submitted that information has been supplied without any infirmities to the applicant. All the information as available in official records have been supplied and no other information related to application/ complaint under reference is available on official record as informed and instructed by the concerned SPIO.5. That the deponent has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after receiving the RTI application. RTI application has been received on 17.11.2014 and on the same date, the same has been marked to the SPIO (DDE) on the 25.11.2014 day by the SPIO (Nodal Office), Mr. Rakesh Sood. Thereafter, a subsequent reminder on 05.12.2014 has also been sent to take necessary action. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure B. Thereafter, as per official record, A letter dated 17.12.2014 had been written to the complainant / applicant vide which he had been called in the Campus for disposal of the RTI Application by the Concerned PIO. A copy of the same is already on record of the Commission. But, the complainant/ applicant failed to respond and filed the complaint before the State Information Commission regarding which notice has been received on 02/03/2015.6. That, the same has been marked to Additional SPIO ( NODAL) Sh Rakesh Sood to SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) to provide reply on 3/3/15 and thereafter, on 27/3/15 one more reminder had also been sent to SPIO (DDE). The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure- C. 7. On 31/3/15 Sh Rajinder Kumar, SPIO (DDE) was deputed by Registrar-cum- FAA to attend hearing in above case.8. That the case has been dealt by SPIO (DDE) who appeared before the Commission and processed the matter.9. That on 6.5. 15 the reply as provided by SPIO (DDE) along with CD containing data of 17 lacs students approx. and copy of DEP prospectus showing fees of different courses and addresses of LCs vide ref no. PTU/DDE/1275 dated 5/5/15 which was send to complainant vide letter no PTU/RTI/N-5330 dated 6/5/15. 10. That thereafter, a requisite information as available has been sent through registered post on 07/05/2015 which has also been recorded in the Order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Commission.

-18-

11. That on 18.05.2015, a letter has been received from the Complainant regarding deficiency in Information. The same had been forwarded to the SPIO (DDE) on 27.05.2015 alongwith the orders of SIC.12. That vide letter dated 04.06.2015 the complainant / applicant has been informed by the SPIO (DDE) regarding the information provided to him.13. On 9.6.15 Sh Rajinder Kumar SPIO (DDE) was deputed by the Registrar–cum-FAA to attend hearing in above case. That on the subsequent date i.e. 09.06.2015, the complainant pleaded non-satisfaction. To ensure requisite supply of information, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on12.06.2015 of all the concerned officials and after the meeting, complainant/ applicant on his visit to campus on 15.06.2015, pointed out the information required by him.14. That, subsequently, the same was forwarded on 16/6/15 to concerned SPIO (Accounts) and on 26/6/15 the information as provided by Sh Parvesh Aspal, SPIO(Accounts) vide ref no.1789 dated 26/6/15 in 6 files having 1723 pages have been send to complainant vide letter PTU/RTI/N/3667 dated 26/6/15. 15. Thereafter also the information sent by the department concerned has been forwarded to the complainant / applicant.16. That to the best of my knowledge, information as available on official record has been supplied to the complainant / applicant in the case under reference and the applicant/ complainant has also been informed vide letter dated 10.08.2015 about the same.17. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the Commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice……”

LXXXIV) The contents of other written statement are reproduced as below:-That the undersigned, Mr. Luthra, Asst. Registrar cum-SPIO (Nodal) craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to file the present reply. As far as present RTIs are concerned the same had been marked to the department concerned PIOs under section 5(4),RTI Act within the prescribed time.

That thereafter following the principle of maximum disclosure, efforts had been made to give maximum information to the satisfaction of the complainant. The detailed affidavits regarding the same of the concerned PIOs had already been taken on record. It would not be out of place to mention that the SPIO (accounts) Mr. Aspal who tendered his affidavit is on study leave at present.

-19-

That at the outset, the respondent seeks indulgence to place on record all the correspondence took place between the complainant & department concerned / respondent for kind perusal as Annexure A.

LXXXV) The same is concerning from the last order dated 03.09.15.

LXXXVI) That on 07.10.2015, the complainant pointed out the deficiencies in information supplied to him earlier & subsequent to the last orders. The deficiency is concerning the LC Codes i.e. initially LC code for Sept. 2012 has not been given by SPIO (Accounts) and now, the same has been provided by the department concerned ( Accounts department).

LXXXVII) Now, the discrepancy has been clarified on phone by the undersigned from concerned SPIO, Account & present AR Accounts concerned Senior Asst. Accounts who had supplied the information.

LXXVIII) It has been clarified that in the earlier information provided by Mr. Parvesh Aspal, SPIO (Accounts) LC Codes were not demanded by the complainant in his letter dated 15.06.2015. The letter had been given by the complainant during his visit in the campus.

LXXIX) Now, vide last order dated 03.09.2015, directions were passed to give LC codes to the complainant. It is submitted that Mr. Joginder, AR accounts & Mr. Ajit, Sen. Asst. by updating the data concerning LC codes in the data of Sept. 12 had given the same.

XC) It would be apt to mention that LC Codes in the data concerning Sept. 12 were partially in existence & subsequently, the same were updated in the data fully by the concerned department. Because of the same, the discrepancy as pointed out has occurred. The discrepancy so occurred is inadvertent and bonafide. There is no mala-fide intention to hide the information. Respondents have made best of their efforts to provide best of the information to the satisfaction of the complainant.

XCI) The other concerns has also been answered by the reply filed & communications sent to the complainant by the concerned SPIO (Accounts)/ concerned officers of accounts.”

XCII) From the contents of written statements and affidavit of Sh. Luthra, it has become clear he has never claimed that Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Parvesh Aspal, (both Assistant Registrar) were PIOs in the instant case. He has never denied in his different submissions that he was not PIO in the instant case.

-20-

XCIII) Apart from it, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, who attended the hearing in the Commission in the instant case for the first time, made a statement that Sh. Luthra is PIO in this case. Sh. Luthra has never denied this statement of Sh. Rajinder Kumar through his oral or written submissions.

XCIV) He has also failed to explain that as to how he marked the application of Sh Kusla to SPIO (DDE) on 25/11/2015 and if he has marked the application on 25/11/2015 then as to why he has failed to place copy of that letter on record.

XCV) Moreover, the additional SPIO (Nodal Officer), who wrote letters on his behalf to the SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) never mentioned regarding the use of section 5 (4) of the Act into same and never informed SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) their assistant is being sought. Through these letters, both SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts) were directed to supply the information to Sh. Kusla. The additional SPIO has also not sent to copies of such letters to Sh Kusla to inform him about the action being taken on his application.

XCVI) From the facts, which have emerged in this case and have been elaborated in para number……, it has become clear beyond doubt that Sh Luthra was PIO in this case and he failed to fulfill his duty, which he was bound to fulfill in the capacity of PIO as per different provisions of the Act.

XCVII) Now I feel that the contents of written statements and affidavits of Sh Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Aspal should be examined to find out the fact that whether they were made PIOs in this case as per provision of section 5 (5) of the Act.

XCVIII) The contents of written statement of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, SPIO, DDE, PTU, submitted on 12-08-2015, are reproduced as below:-

I, Rajinder Kumar, SPIO (DDE) in the case titled above has acted in a due &diligent manner on the following dates:

(1) On receiving the RTI application, I being the SPIO concerned had written a letter dated 17.12.2014 to the complainant /applicant Sadhu Ram Kusla which is not being disputed even by the complainant wherein he had been called in the campus for disposal of the application.

(2) But, unfortunately, he had never come & directly filed complaint case before the State Information Commission regarding which we had received the notice on 2/3/15. (3) On dated 13/04/15, I personally appear before the Hon’ble Commission and stated that information shall be supplied as per the record.(4) Thereafter, the requisite information as available has been sent through registered post on 7/05/15. The same has also been recorded in the orders dated 07.05.15.

-21-(5) Subsequently, a letter has been received by the complainant stating the information so sent has not been demanded by him. It would be apt to mention that the information so sent has been sent as per official record. Even vide letter dated 04.06.15, he has been informed that all the information has been provided to him as per the official record.(6) That the next date of hearing i.e. 09.06.15 has also been attended by me.(7) Thereafter, to sort out the issue, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on12. 06.2015 of all the concerned officers & subsequently, the complainant has been called for inspection, he visited the campus on 15.06.15 and pointed out the information required by him.(8) After that, as per official record, information has been given as demanded & on my part, vide letter dated 10.08.15, information vide CD has been given. I humbly submit that information to the best available has been given to the complainant/ applicant / No other information lies in the record.

The contents of affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar are as under:- 1. That it is respectfully submitted that the deponent officer hold the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Commission in the highest esteem as an article of faith and justice and would never violate or disobey any directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission, intentionally and unintentionally. However, an unconditional apology is submitted to this Hon’ble Commission, for inadvertent lapse, if any, on the part of the deponent.2. That the present short affidavit is being filed by the deponent being the SPIO DDE, PTU to bring out the proceedings initiated to deal with the RTI application in question before the Hon’ble Commission and craves the leave of this Hon’ble Commission to file any additional reply as may be necessary or so directed by the Hon’ble Commission.3. That the outset it is submitted that information has been supplied without any infirmities to the applicant. All the information as available in official records have been supplied and no other information related to application/ complaint under reference is available on official record.4. That the deponent has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after receiving the RTI application. A letter dated 17.12.2014 had been written to the complainant / applicant vide which he had been called in the Campus for disposal of the RTI application. A copy of the same is already on record of the Commission. But, the complainant/ applicant failed to respond and filed the complaint before the State Information Commission regarding which notice has been received on 02/03/2015.

-22-5. On the date of hearing i.e. 31/03/2015, I personally appeared before the Hon’ble Commission and stated that information shall be supplied as per the record.6. Thereafter, a requisite information as available has been sent through registered post on 07/05/2015 which has also been recorded in the Order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Commission, Subsequently, a letter has been received by the Complainant stating that the information so sent has not been demanded by him. It would be apt to mention that the information so sent has been sent as per the official record and vide letter dated 04.06.2015, the complainant/ applicant has also been informed that all the information has been provided to him as per the official record.7. That the subsequent dated i.e. 09.06.2015 has also been attended by me and thereafter, to sort out the issues, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on 12.06.2015 of all the concerned officials and after the meeting, complainant/ applicant on his visit to Campus on 15.06.2015 , pointed out the information required by him. 8. That the applicant /complainant has been informed vide letter dated 10.08.2015 that all the information as available in the official record has been supplied / provided to him. On my part, information vide CD has also been given.9. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the Commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice.

XCIX) From the contents of written submissions and affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, it has become clear that he was never made PIO as per provisions of section 5 (5) of the Act.

Section 5 (5) of the Act reads as “…Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”

The provision of section 5 (5) clearly says that original PIO or PIO at the first stage can claim that some other officer, whose assistance has been sought for by him, was PIO in any case only in the situation where the PIO at first stage himself or herself has sought the assistance of any other officer under section 5 (4). It can be said in the manner that to invoke the provision of section 5 (5), the PIO at the first stage must have used the provision of section 5 (4).

C) In this case, no provision of section 5 (4) has been used by the PIO and hence he can’t invoke section 5 (4) and section 5 (5).

-23-CI) Moreover, he has made a statement before the Bench twice that Sh Luthra is PIO in this case.

CII) The contents of the written statement of Sh. Parvesh Aspal, SPIO-cum-AR (F&A) are as under:-

1) That I, Parvesh Aspal, SPIO cum AR (F&A) has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after being involved in the same vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015.2) That in a visit on 15.06.15 the complainant /applicant sought information concerning accounts & thesame has been handed over to him on 26.06.15. The information includes 6 files having 1723 pages.3) That vide letter dated 10.08.2015, he has been intimated that the information available in the officialrecord has already been supplied. No other information related to these cases is available as per officialrecord.The documents have already been placed on record.The contents of the affidavit of Sh Aspal are as under:-

1. That it is respectfully submitted that the deponent officer hold the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Commission in the highest esteem as an article of faith and justice and would never violate or disobey any directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission, intentionally and unintentionally. However, an unconditional apology is submitted to this Hon’ble Commission, for inadvertent lapse, if any, on the part of the deponent.2. That the present short affidavit is being filed by the deponent being the SPIO FINANCE & ACCOUNTS, PTU to bring out the proceedings initiated to deal with the RTI application in question before the Hon’ble Commission and craves the leave of this Hon’ble Commission to file any additional reply as may be necessary or so directed by the Hon’ble Commission.3. That the outset it is submitted that information has been supplied without any infirmities to the applicant. All the information as available in official records have been supplied and no other informationrelated to application / complaint under reference is available on official record.4. That the deponent has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after beingdirectly involved in the matter vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015 . A copy of the same is already on record of the Commission.

-24-5. That in a visit on 15.06.2015, the complainant / applicant sought information concerning accounts andthe same has been handed over to him on 30.06.2015. The information so supplied ran into 6 files having1723 pages.6. That the applicant / complainant has been informed vide letters dated 10.08.2015 and 13.08.2015 that all the information as available in the official record has been supplied / provided.7. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice.

CIII) From the contents of written statement and affidavit of Sh. Aspal, it has become clear that he was never made PIO in this case by Sh. Luthra and he was involved in the instant case when a committee was constituted on 12.06.2015. Sh. Luthra also never claimed that he was made PIO in this case.

CIV) Moreover, Sh. Aspal never claimed that he was made PIO in this case.

CV) Sh. Luthra has never denied the fact that he was not SPIO in this case even during in hearings before the Commission in which he appeared and he was given full opportunity to explain his position and to explain as to why information was not given to Sh. Kusla within stipulated time and incomplete information has been given in about 9-10 months.

CVI) So, in view of paras number XCVIII to CV, it has become clear that Sh. Luthra was PIO in this case and hence, he can’t be allowed to shift his liabilities on the other officials.

CVII) Apart from it, there are number of contradictions/differences in different written statements and affidavit submitted by Sh. Luthra in different hearing personally or through his representatives.

CVIII) From the comparison between the contents of status report and the contents of the affidavit filed by Sh. Luthra in the instant case, it has become very clear that number of contradictions/differences are there between the claims made by Sh Luthra in the status report and affidavit.

CIX) The first difference, which has emerged, is regarding the date of receipt of application of Sh. Kusla under the RTI Act for seeking information.

CX) In the status report Sh. Luthra claimed application of Sh. Kusla was received on 21.11.14 but in the affidavit he has mentioned that application has been received on 17.11.14.

-25-

CXI) However, this contradiction can be ignored as it could be a typographical error or an inadvertent mistake on part of Sh. Luthra.

CXII) The second contradiction is with regard to the fact that in the status report Sh. Luthra has claimed that RTI application marked to SPIO (DDE) by SPIO (Nodal) on 25.11.14 while in the affidavit he has claimed that Sh Rakesh Sood, Additional SPIO (Nodal) has marked the RTI Application to SPIO (DDE).

CXIII) The third contradiction is with regard to the fact that in the reminder written to SPIO (DDE). In the status report Sh Luthra claimed that reminder sent to SPIO (DDE) by SPIO (Nodal) while in the affidavit Sh Luthra claimed that a reminder was sent as per Annexure B. In that Annexure B, it has been clearly mentioned that reminder has been written by Additional SPIO (Nodal) not by Sh. Luthra as SPIO.

CXIV) Similarly contradictions are found regarding the reminder sent to SPIO (DDE) on 03.03.2015 and 27.03.2015.

CXV) Another important contradiction, which mattered most in the instant complaint case, is with regard to fact that in the status report and in the affidavit, Sh. Luthra never claimed that he had sought assistance of other officials under section 5 (4). But in the written submission, made on 07-10-2015 at a very later stage, he claimed that application of Sh. Kusla was marked to department concerned PIO under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act within prescribed time.

CXVI) From the above mentioned contradictions, which have been found in the contents of different written submissions and in the affidavit, it has become clear that Sh. Luthra after denying the information to Sh. Kusla started using various excuses to escape liability under the Act when the Commission started proceedings under section 18 of the Act in this case.

CXVII) On 07.10.2015, Sh. Kusla in his oral submission claimed that respondent PIO had denied the information to him with the motive to put a veil on the scam, which had taken place in the PTU in connection with the siphoning of hundreds of crores of rupees by a section of functionaries of PTU in connivance with a section of entrepreneurs, who had been running the Learning Centers of PTU across the country.

CXVIII) He informed the Bench that when the matter regarding scam to the tune of hundred of crores of rupees, done by a section of functionaries of PTU by making embezzlement in collection of admission fee, late fee, transfer fee, from deduction under TDS and collection of Service Tax , embezzlement in purchase of reading material/ books and

-26-

prospectus, sale of degrees , two degrees at same roll number etc, came to notice of State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, the State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab has initiated the action and a probe has been launched into same.

CXIX) He stated that the State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, had also approached him and had taken a formal complaint from him so that multi Crore scam of PTU could be probed, guilty could be identified and could be taken to task as per law of land.

CXX) He claimed that the initiation of probe by State Vigilance Bureau regarding alleged scam in PTU, Punjab, was also a strong indication to the fact that one of the reasons for denial of the information to him by the respondent PIO was connected with the fact that this had been done to put a veil on the multi crore scam.

CXXI) He also pleaded that when Sh. Luthra, respondent PIO, has failed to claim/ mention in the status report and affidavit, filed by him, that he has used Section 5(4) of the Act to seek help/assistance from Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Aspal then as to why Sh. Luthra made the same claim that he has sought the assistance of Sh Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Aspal under Section 5(4) in his written statement, made on 07.10.2015.

CXXII) He also pleaded that during the first three hearings Sh Luthra remained absent from the Commission. Sh Luthra attended the hearing in the Commission only after a Show Cause was issued to him by the undersigned on 09.06.2015.

CXXIII) He pleaded that even Sh. Luthra failed to explain as to why information was not supplied within the stipulated period and despite of the fact repeated assurance were given to him(Sh. Kusla) by his (Sh. Luthra) the representatives in the Commission.

CXXIV) He asserted that information was withheld from him with the malafide intension by the respondent PIO as respondent PIO was trying to hide something, which did not suit to the interest of PTU or which could have exposed the wrongdoings of the PTU authorities, if revealed.

CXXV) After hearing the parties concerned and examining the documents placed on record, following observations are made in the instant case.

CXXVI) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Chief Information Commissioner & Anr vs. State Of Manipur & Anr (decided on 12 December, 2011) has held , that “It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has

https://www.rediffmail.com/cgi-bin/red.cgi?red=http%3A%2F%2Findiankanoon.org%2Fdoc%2F54678849%2F&isImage=0&BlockImage=0&rediffng=0&rogue=33aeb94ba15cc3f3e0675802cf7d93646b73a224

-27-

been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.

CXXVII) Section 18 (1) of the Act says “Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—

(a)who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b)who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

© who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to

records under this Act.

CXXVIII) Section 20 (1) reads as Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving

https://www.rediffmail.com/cgi-bin/red.cgi?red=http%3A%2F%2Findiankanoon.org%2Fdoc%2F137146265%2F&isImage=0&BlockImage=0&rediffng=0&rogue=a604c5f479d9491945667f44923809976c855cf4


-28-

that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

CXXIX) However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.”

CXXX) Hence, in view of the abovementioned judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court,

the Bench has got no power to issue directions to supply the requisite information to Sh.

Kusla. However, the Bench is bound to satisfy itself over the fact that conduct of PIO in this

case was bona fide in denial of information to Sh. Kusla at first stage and then supplying

incomplete information to him at later stage.

CXXXI) The various points, which are important to determine the conduct of PIO, who

is Sh. Luthra in the instant case, are as follow:-

CXXXII) Sh. Luthra failed to explain that as to why information was not supplied to Sh Kusla within 30 days period, as mandated under section 7 (1), from the receipt of application as per provision of section 6 (1) of the Act. The contents of section 7 (1) has been reproduced in the earlier paras.

CXXXIII) Sh. Luthra here also failed to explain that as to why the information, which was given to Sh. Kusla over a period of 8 to 10 months, is not complete and as to why this information has been given to Sh. Kusla in piecemeal.

CXXVII) Sh. Luthra has also failed to explain that as to why LC code has not been mentioned in other semesters of other sessions when these are available in the month of September 2012 Session and in the prospectus issued by PTU.

CXXXIV) He also failed to explain as to whether LC code were available and were used by the PTU authorities while making income tax deductions, under Tax deduction at Source (TDS) policy, from the payments made to different Learning Centers time and again.

CXXXV) He has also failed to explain that as to why partial information, which was already In existence as claimed by Sh. Luthra in one of his replies, when Sh. Kusla moved his application under Act, was not supplied to him(Sh. Kusla).

CXXXVI) Sh. Luthra also failed to explain as to why information seeker was not given the information when he was called to PTU Campus on 15.6.2015 to collect the same.

-29-

CXXXVII) The respondent PIO concerned was given number of opportunities to explain his conduct and position in the instant complaint case. The first opportunity was given to him when a notice under RTI Act was sent to him on 26.02.2015 . In that notice he was directed to file written reply before the next date of hearing.

CXXXVIII) Subsequent to this notice the Respondent PIO was given opportunities on 31.03.2015 and 07.05. 2015. He was issued a show cause under section 20 (1) on 09.06.2015. He was also given ample opportunities after show cause was issued to him on 09.06.2015. He was given opportunities on 15.07.2015, 12.08,2015, 03.09.2015 and 07.10.2015.

CXXXIX) After examining the documents placed on record and evaluating the oral submissions of the parties concerned, I am of the considered view that in the instant case Sh. Luthra has failed to fulfill the responsibility assigned to him in the capacity of SPIO under the Act.

CXL) Sh. Luthra has denied the information to the applicant / complainant Sh Kusla with malafide attention with following reasons:-

CXLI) The first reasons, which has emerged prominently in this instant case is connected with fact that the information was denied by Sh. Luthra to put a veil on the alleged scam, which took place in the PTU.

CXLII) The second reason, which has also surfaced prominently during the hearing of the case, is connected with the fact that initiation of probe by State Vigilance Bureau regarding alleged scam in PTU Punjab is also a strong indication to the fact that one of the reasons for denial of the information to Sh. Kusla by Sh. Luthra.

CXLIII) The third reason, which has emerged in the instant case, is connected with the fact that Sh. Luthra was well aware of the fact that embezzlement to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees had taken place in various segments of the PTU and if such information was disclosed to Sh. Kusla then it would bring “miseries” to the PTU and would also make a section of functionaries to face criminal cases on account of that embezzlement.

CXLIV) The preamble of the RTI Act says “An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto…….”

-30-

CXLV) It has been made clear that RTI Act, 2005 has been enacted by the parliament with the motive to promote transparency and accountability. So it says that when the transparency is compromised by anyone then his or her accountability must be fixed as per provisions of the RTI Act.

CXLVI) In the present case, undisputedly, certain information was not provided to information seeker as SPIO (Nodal) claimed that he marked the RTI request to SPIO (DDE) and SPIO (Accounts).

CXLVII) The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the judgement (delivered on: 12.09.2014) in the case titled “MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS THROUGH SECRETERY & ANR vs. GIRISH MITTAL held that PIO cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials.

CXLVII) The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, that is where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed.

CXLVIII) In the instant case, the respondent PIO, who is Sh. Luthra has been found guilty of first refusing the information to Sh. Kusla and then supplying him incomplete information that too after the Commission started inquiring into the compliant made under section 18 against PIO against denial of information to him.

CXLIX) The Bench is of the strong view that hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice.

CL) The Bench has also observed this thing in the instant case perfectly and without any flaw. The parties concerned were given number of opportunities to make their claims and counter claims, the respondent PIO was given number of opportunities to explain his conduct before and after the issuance of show cause to him under section 20 (1) of the Act.

CLI) The Bench passes the following order after applying mind and recording the reasons also.

-31-

CLII) After giving thoughtful consideration to all the facts, which were brought before the Bench during different hearings, I found that Sh. Kishore Luthra has acted in the manner, which is against the letter and spirit, which was behind in enactment the RTI Act, 2005.

CLIII) I am also of the considered view that that Sh. Luthra has denied the information to Sh. Kusla so that Sh. Kusla could not have access to those documents which would unveil the multicrore scam of PTU. Hence, Sh. Luthra has taken a retrograde and whimsical step and made a strong attempt to bulldose the right of the information seeker to enjoy the benefits of transparent law to expose corruption.

CLIV) Sh. Luthra has done it deliberately and knowingly as he was well aware of the fact that only option to save the PTU authorities from the consequences of “unveiling” of the financial scam, was to deny the information to Sh. Kusla.

CLV) By taking all the views into consideration I found myself compelled to impose a penalty of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) @ Rs 250/- per day on Sh. Kishore Luthra, SPIO (Nodal) Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar as Sh. Luthra does not deserve any kind of mercy in this case as he has made all the attempts to deny information to Sh, Kusla at the first instance and when the case was taken up before the Commission even that he supplied incomplete information to Sh. Kusla and hence Sh. Luthra is found guilty of denying information/supplying complete information to Sh. Kusla with malafide intention.

CLVI) The amount of penalty shall be deducted from the salary, starting from the month of February, 2016 and every month, Rs. 5000/- (Rs Five thousands) will be deducted by the Vice-Chancellor, PTU, Jalandhar alongwith the officer/official concerned, who deals with the making of salary bills and payment of salary to Sh. Luthra.

CLVII) The amount of penalty will be deposited in the treasury of Punjab Government under the head…..

Major Head .. 0070 -Other Administrative Services Subj-Major Head .. 60 - Other Services Minor Head .. 800 - Other Receipts Sub-Head .. 86 - Fee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Detailed Head .. 0070 Other Administrative Services 60 Other Services- 800- Other Receipts- 86- Fees under the Right to Information Act, 2005

-32- CLVIII) Sh. Kusla has demanded compensation also by stating that the PIO concerned and other officials of PTU have enjoyed the luxury of spending funds of the PTU to attend hearings in the Commission and they also have paid fee to Sh. Khanna, Advocate, engaged by them to defend them in the instant complaint case but he has spent large amount of money from his own pocket to attend hearings in the Commission and he had suffered detriment on this account. After giving thoughtful consideration to the demand of Sh. Kusla, I am of the considered view that no compensation can be awarded to Sh. Kusla as Section 18 of Act does not provide the same in the complaint case.

CLVIX) However, Sh. Kusla is at liberty to write to Punjab Technical University (PTU) authorities for initiating disciplinary action against Sh. Luthra.CLX) I am also of the considered view that a copy of the orders be sent to Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab ; Principal Secretary and Director, Department of Technical Education and Vice Chancellor, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through registered post for information and with the direction to ensure the implementation and compliance of the orders.

The Commission is also of the considered view that Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab must be made aware of the fact that an alleged scam to the tune of hundreds of crores of rupees has taken place in the PTU so his special attention is required in this case to take the cognizance of the same for any necessary action, if he desires so and deems fit.

The case is adjourned to 23 rd February, 2016(Tuesday) at 12:30 P. M. in Chamber, S. C. O. 32 – 34, Sector 17 – C, Chandigarh with the directions to the Vice

Chancellor, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and officials concerned, who make salary bills and payment of salary of the employees of the PTU, Jalandhar, to produce proof of deduction of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand Only) as first installment of the from the salary of Sh. Luthra penalty from the month of February, 2016.

Copies of the order be sent to the parties. (Chander Parkash)

21st January, 2016 State Information Commissioner

i) The Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab(Regd. Post) Pb. Civil Sectt., Chandigarh

ii) The Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab(Regd. Post) Department of Technical Education,

Pb. Mini Sectt., Sector 9, Chandigarh

iii) The Director, (Regd. Post) Department of Technical Education,

Plot No. 1,Sector 36 A, Chandigarh

iv) The Vice Chancellor,(Regd. Post) Punjab Technical University,

Jalandhar



Sadhu Ram KuslaS/o Sh. Ram Chand,H. No. 138, Veer Colony,Maharaja Aggarsen Road,Bathinda ..…Complainant

Vs






iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar, through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of HARYANA State. List of Learning Centers, for which the information was requested, was also attached with the application.


-2-










-3-










-4-









xxx) On this the respondent PIO concerned was directed to submit a reply clarifying the fact that as to whether information in connection with L C Code and station name was available in the official record or not. If the required information was not available in official record, the -5-









-6-









-7-






-8-









-9-







Submitted by :-


Dated: 08-09-2015”



-10-









-11-









-12-











-13-










-14-









-15-






-16-








-17-


-18-

11. That on 18.05.2015, a letter has been received from the Complainant regarding deficiency in Information. The same had been forwarded to the SPIO (DDE) on 27.05.2015 alongwith the orders of SIC.12. That vide letter dated 04.06.2015 the complainant / applicant has been informed by the SPIO (DDE) regarding the information provided to him.13. On 9.6.15 Sh Rajinder Kumar SPIO (DDE) was deputed by the Registrar–cum-FAA to attend hearing in above case. That on the subsequent date i.e. 09.06.2015, the complainant pleaded non-satisfaction. To ensure requisite supply of information, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on12.06.2015 of all the concerned officials and after the meeting, complainant/ applicant on his visit to campus on 15.06.2015, pointed out the information required by him.14. That, subsequently, the same was forwarded on 16/6/15 to concerned SPIO ( Accounts) and on 26/6/15 the information as provided by Sh Parvesh Aspal, SPIO ( Accounts) vide ref no.1789 dated 26/6/15 in 6 files having 1723 pages have been send to complainant vide letter PTU/RTI/N/3667 dated 26/6/15. 15. Thereafter also the information sent by the department concerned has been forwarded to the complainant / applicant.16. That to the best of my knowledge, information as available on official record has been supplied to the complainant / applicant in the case under reference and the applicant/ complainant has also been informed vide letter dated 10.08.2015 about the same.17. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the Commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice……”



-19-










-20-






























-25-









-26-











-27-











-28-
















-29-









-30-





CXLVIII) In the instant case, the respondent PIO, who is Sh. Luthra has been found guilty of first refusing the information to Sh Kusla and then supplying him incomplete information that too after the Commission started inquiring into the compliant made under section 18 against PIO against denial of information to him.




-31-

CLII) After giving thoughtful consideration to all the facts, which were brought before the Bench during different hearings, I found that Sh. Kishore Luthra has acted in the manner, which is against the letter and spirit, which was behind the enactment the RTI Act, 2005.

CLIII) I am also of the considered view that that Sh. Luthra has denied the information to Sh. Kusla so that Sh. Kusla could not have access to those documents which could unveil the multicrore scam of PTU. Hence, Sh. Luthra has taken a retrograde and whimsical step and made a strong attempt to bulldoze the right of the information seeker to enjoy the benefits of transparency law to expose corruption.


CLV) By taking all the views into consideration I found myself compelled to impose a penalty of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) @ Rs 250/- per day on Sh. Kishore Luthra, SPIO (Nodal) Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar as Sh. Luthra does not deserve any kind of mercy in this case as he has made all the attempts to deny information to Sh, Kusla at the first instance and when the case was taken up before the Commission even then he supplied incomplete information to Sh. Kusla and hence Sh. Luthra is found guilty of denying information/supplying incomplete information to Sh. Kusla with malafide intention.

CLVI) The amount of penalty shall be deducted from the salary, starting from the month of February, 2016 and every month, Rs. 5000/- (Rs Five thousands) will be deducted by the Vice-Chancellor, PTU, Jalandhar alongwith the officer/official concerned, who deals with the making of salary bills and payment of salary to Sh. Luthra.CLVII) The amount of penalty will be deposited in the treasury of Punjab Government under

the head…..















Jalandhar




Vs




The facts of instant case are as below:-i) The present complaint was moved to the State Information Commission, Punjab (hereinafter as Commission only), by Sh. Sadhu Ram Kusla against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar, on 28.01-2015.


iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of Chandigarh, Chhatisgarh, Delhi, Goa and Gujarat States. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.


-2-










-3-










-4-


















-6-









-7-






-8-









-9-







Submitted by :-


Dated: 08-09-2015”



-10-









-11-









-12-











-13-










-14-









-15-






-16-








-17-


-18-




-19-










-20-






























-25-









-26-











-27-











-28-
















-29-









-30-









-31-





















Jalandhar




Vs





ii) Sh. Kusla moved this complaint under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter Act only) after he failed to get any response or got unsatisfactory response from the PIO concerned of the PTU in response to the queries, which he has raised in his application moved to PIO on 03.12-2014 under the Act.

iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh States. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.



-2-




viii) During the first hearing of this case before the bench of undersigned, held on 31.03.2015, Sh. Kusla submitted that he had sought for information to expose/unveil a scam pertaining to the bungling made in collection of examination fee, admission fee, income tax and service tax from different learning centers of Punjab Technical University, running in different states of the Country. He also submitted that total scam, which has taken place with the connivance of authorities concerned and the people, who were running those centers, is worth about Rs. 500 Crores.





-3-










-4-










-5-









-6-









-7-






-8-









-9-







Submitted by :-


Dated: 08-09-2015”



-10-









-11-









-12-











-13-










-14-









-15-






-16-








-17-


-18-




-19-










-20-






























-25-









-26-











-27-











-28-
















-29-









-30-









-31-





















Jalandhar




Vs






iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of Himachal, J & K and Jharkhand State. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.


-2-










-3-










-4-


















-6-









-7-






-8-









-9-







Submitted by :-


Dated: 08-09-2015”



-10-









-11-









-12-











-13-










-14-









-15-






-16-








-17-


-18-




-19-










-20-










-21-

(5) Subsequently, a letter has been received by the complainant stating the information so sent has not been demanded by him. It would be apt to mention that the information so sent has been sent as per official record. Even vide letter dated 04.06.15, he has been informed that all the information has been provided to him as per the official record.(6) That the next date of hearing i.e. 09.06.15 has also been attended by me.(7) Thereafter, to sort out the issue, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on12. 06.2015 of all the concerned officers & subsequently, the complainant has been called for inspection, he visited the campus on 15.06.15 and pointed out the information required by him.(8) After that, as per official record, information has been given as demanded & on my part, vide letter dated 10.08.15, information vide CD has been given. I humbly submit that information to the best available has been given to the complainant/ applicant / No other information lies in the record.


-22-

5. On the date of hearing i.e. 31/03/2015, I personally appeared before the Hon’ble Commission and stated that information shall be supplied as per the record.6. Thereafter, a requisite information as available has been sent through registered post on 07/05/2015 which has also been recorded in the Order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Commission, Subsequently, a letter has been received by the Complainant stating that the information so sent has not been demanded by him. It would be apt to mention that the information so sent has been sent as per the official record and vide letter dated 04.06.2015, the complainant/ applicant has also been informed that all the information has been provided to him as per the official record.7. That the subsequent dated i.e. 09.06.2015 has also been attended by me and thereafter, to sort out the issues, a meeting had been called by the Registrar on 12.06.2015 of all the concerned officials and after the meeting, complainant/ applicant on his visit to Campus on 15.06.2015 , pointed out the information required by him. 8. That the applicant /complainant has been informed vide letter dated 10.08.2015 that all the information as available in the official record has been supplied / provided to him. On my part, information vide CD has also been given.9. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the Commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice.





-23-

CI) Moreover, he has made a statement before the Bench twice that Sh Luthra is PIO in this case.

CII) The contents of the written statement of Sh. Parvesh Aspal, SPIO-cum-AR (F&A) are as under:-1) That I, Parvesh Aspal, SPIO cum AR (F&A) has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after being involved in the same vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015.

2) That in a visit on 15.06.15 the complainant /applicant sought information concerning accounts & the same has been handed over to him on 26.06.15. The information includes 6 files having 1723 pages.

3) That vide letter dated 10.08.2015, he has been intimated that the information available in the official record has already been supplied. No other information related to these cases is available as per official record.

The documents have already been placed on record.

The contents of the affidavit of Sh Aspal are as under:-

1. That it is respectfully submitted that the deponent officer hold the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Commission in the highest esteem as an article of faith and justice and would never violate or disobey any directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission, intentionally and unintentionally. However, an unconditional apology is submitted to this Hon’ble Commission, for inadvertent lapse, if any, on the part of the deponent.2. That the present short affidavit is being filed by the deponent being the SPIO FINANCE & ACCOUNTS, PTU to bring out the proceedings initiated to deal with the RTI application in question before the Hon’ble Commission and craves the leave of this Hon’ble Commission to file any additional reply as may be necessary or so directed by the Hon’ble Commission.

3. That the outset it is submitted that information has been supplied without any infirmities to the applicant. All the information as available in official records have been supplied and no other information related to application / complaint under reference is available on official record.

4. That the deponent has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after beingdirectly involved in the matter vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015 . A copy of the same is already on record of the Commission.

-24-

5. That in a visit on 15.06.2015, the complainant / applicant sought information concerning accounts and the same has been handed over to him on 30.06.2015. The information so supplied ran into 6 files having1723 pages.6. That the applicant / complainant has been informed vide letters dated 10.08.2015 and 13.08.2015 that all the information as available in the official record has been supplied / provided.7. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice.









-25-









-26-










-27-






© who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information

within the time limits specified under this Act;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information

under this Act; and in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.


-28-


















-29-









-30-









-31-





















Jalandhar




Vs






iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of PUNJAB State. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.



-2-


vi) The other prayer, which he also made in the compliant, is connected with the fact that a penalty to the tune of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) per day be imposed on the PIO of the PTU for denying him the information sought for by him when the same information was readily available with the PIO concerned.







-3-


xiv) He also mentioned that Sh. Kishore Luthra, Assistant Registrar, PTU, Jalandhar, was PIO in this case. Again he claimed, during the hearing, held on 09-06-2015, that Sh. Luthra was PIO in this case. He has also given written statement in this regard








-4-










-5-









-6-









-7-






-8-









-9-







Submitted by :-


Dated: 08-09-2015”



-10-









-11-









-12-











-13-










-14-









-15-






-16-








-17-


-18-




-19-










-20-


















CII) The contents of the written statement of Sh. Parvesh Aspal, SPIO-cum-AR (F&A) are as under:-1) That I, Parvesh Aspal, SPIO cum AR (F&A) has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after being involved in the same vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015.

2) That in a visit on 15.06.15 the complainant /applicant sought information concerning accounts & the same has been handed over to him on 26.06.15. The information includes 6 files having 1723 pages.

3) That vide letter dated 10.08.2015, he has been intimated that the information available in the official record has already been supplied. No other information related to these cases is available as per official record.

The documents have already been placed on record.

The contents of the affidavit of Sh Aspal are as under:-

1. That it is respectfully submitted that the deponent officer hold the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Commission in the highest esteem as an article of faith and justice and would never violate or disobey any directions passed by the Hon’ble Commission, intentionally and unintentionally. However, an unconditional apology is submitted to this Hon’ble Commission, for inadvertent lapse, if any, on the part of the deponent.2. That the present short affidavit is being filed by the deponent being the SPIO FINANCE & ACCOUNTS, PTU to bring out the proceedings initiated to deal with the RTI application in question before the Hon’ble Commission and craves the leave of this Hon’ble Commission to file any additional reply as may be necessary or so directed by the Hon’ble Commission.

3. That the outset it is submitted that information has been supplied without any infirmities to the applicant. All the information as available in official records have been supplied and no other information related to application / complaint under reference is available on official record.

4. That the deponent has acted in a due and diligent manner in the case under consideration after beingdirectly involved in the matter vide a committee constituted on 12.06.2015 . A copy of the same is already on record of the Commission.

-24-5. That in a visit on 15.06.2015, the complainant / applicant sought information concerning accounts and the same has been handed over to him on 30.06.2015. The information so supplied ran into 6 files having1723 pages.6. That the applicant / complainant has been informed vide letters dated 10.08.2015 and 13.08.2015 that all the information as available in the official record has been supplied / provided.7. That in light of aforesaid submission, it is humbly prayed before the commission that directions issued to the deponent vide order dated 12.08.2015 may kindly be dropped in the interest of justice.









-25-









-26-











-27-











-28-
















-29-









-30-









-31-




CLV) By taking all the views into consideration I found myself compelled to impose a penalty of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) @ Rs 250/- per day on Sh. Kishore Luthra, SPIO (Nodal) Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar as Sh. Luthra does not deserve any kind of mercy in this case as he has made all the attempts to deny information to Sh, Kusla at the first instance and when the case was taken up before the Commission even that he supplied incomplete information to Sh. Kusla and hence Sh. Luthra is found guilty of denying information/supplying incomplete information to Sh. Kusla with malafide intention.

















Jalandhar

Documents

grahakjago.comgrahakjago.com/rti/doc/Complaint Case N… · Web view · 2016-01-28STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB. SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054