STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Jasbir Singh,

Village Bolapur Jhabewal,
P.O. Ramgarh,
District Ludhiana.
Complainant
Versus

Public Information Officer,

O/O District Transport Officer,
Sri Muktsar Sahib. .Respondent

Complaint Case No.1411/12

ORDER

Shri Jasbir Singh, the appellant, filed the present complaint in this

Commission which was received on 22.5.2012. The notice of hearing dated 3.7.2012 was issued

to the PIO, and a copy of the same was also sent to the complainant. This case was listed for the

last hearing on 27.3.2014 and after hearing Shri Uma Shankar Gupta, PCS, Commissioner

Municipal Corporation, SAS Nagar and Shri Sandeep Rishi, PCS, DTO Sri Muktsar Sahib, the

order was reserved.

On 18.4.2014, it was notified through the web site of this Commission

that the decision in this appeal case shall be pronounced on 7.5.2014 at 11.00 AM in the presence

of the parties whosoever would like to attend. Today the complainant as well as the respondent

has not turned up.

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-2-

The facts of this case are that the PIO did not attend the hearings in this

Commission on 26.7.2012. 13.9.2012. 31.10.2012. 20.12.2012.and 30.1.2013 nor did he depute

any representative on his behalf. During hearing of this case on 12.3.2013 Shri Bhupinder

Mohan Singh, PCS, District Transport Officer, Sri Mukatsar Sahib came present and submitted

that the official dealing with the subject matter of the complaint was placed under suspension and

therefore the application of the complainant did not come to his notice. The PIO had tendered

unqualified apology for not attending the previous hearings in this Commission. The PIO had

assured to supply the information within two weeks time through registered post.

On 9.4.2013 the Public Information Officer was not present, however a

message through e-mail, had been received from Shri Bhupinder Mohan Singh, PCS, District

Transport Officer, Sri Mukatsar Sahib mentioning that due to some official meeting, he be

granted exemption and the case be adjourned. At the last date of hearing the PIO had tendered

unqualified apology for not attending the previous hearings in this Commission and also had

assured to supply the information within two weeks time. The complainant stated that an amount

of Rs. 1000/- as compensation was awarded to him vide order of this Commission dated

13.9.2012, however, the same had not been paid,. The complainant stated that he was facing

harassment and detriment due to non-supply of the information by the respondent and therefore

prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Taking a serious note of the delay in the matter, the

Public Authority, i.e. the District Transport Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib was directed to pay

an
 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-3-

amount of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for the harassment and detriment caused to the

complainant. The PIO was directed to be personally present at the next date of hearing i.e. on

22.5.2013, to explain the delay in submitting his written reply relating to the complaint.

During hearing of this case on 22.5.2013, the complainant stated that till

date the compensation awarded by this Commission had not been given to him. In view of the

delay in supply of the information Shri Bhupinder Mohan Singh, PCS, was issued show cause

notice under Section 20(1) of the Right Information Act, 2005 as to why penalty be not imposed

upon him. Further Shri Bhupinder Mohan Singh was directed to be personally present on the

next date of hearing as an opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.

Again on 25.6.2013 Shri Bhupinder Mohan Singh was not present during the hearing. The

complainant stated that compensation of Rs. 2000/- had not been paid to him by the Public

authority i.e. DTO, Sri Muktsar Sahib as per the order of this Commission dated 22.5.2013.

Shri Bhupinder Mohan Singh, PCS, was given a last opportunity to be

present at the next date of hearing and also to submit his reply regarding the show cause notice

under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as to why penalty be not imposed

upon him. On the request of the complainant, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.

3000/- for harassment and detriment caused to him which was to be paid by the Public Authority

i.e. DTO, Sri Muktsar Sahib within one weeks time through bank draft to be sent to the

complaint through registered post. On

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-4-

17.7.2013 Shri B.M. Singh, PCS came present. Shri Varinder Pal Singh Bajwa, PCS, District

Transport Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib was also present and submitted that the information

demanded by the complainant had been supplied to him on 14.3.2013. He also submitted that

amount of compensation of Rs. 3000/- had been paid to the complainant. The complainant

confirmed the receipt of amount of compensation. Shri B.M.Singh stated that he had not received

copy of the order of this Commission dated 25.6.2013 and now he had obtained copy of the

same. He sought time to file his explanation in the matter. Accordingly the case was adjourned to

27.8.2013. On 27.8.2013 and 17.10.2013 Shri B.M.Singh was again absent. On 21.11.2013 Sh.

B.M.Singh, PCS came present and submited that he was placed under suspension by the State

Government. Due to this, he could not file his explanation as per orders dated 17-10-2013 of

this Commission. He sought time for filing his written explanation. Accordingly, the case was

adjourned to 9-1-2014 at 11.00 AM.

On 9.1.2014 Sh. B.M.Singh, came present and submitted that he could not

file his explanation as he was under suspension and could not have access to the record relating

to office of DTO, Sri Muktsar Sahib. He sought adjournment to file his explanation. Shri

B.M.Singh, PCS (Under Suspension) also stated that he was not working as PIO,DTO Sri

Muktsar Sahib at the time of receipt of the RTI request of Shri Jasbir Singh, complainant. In

view of the submission of Shri B.M.Singh, the DTO, Sri Muktsar Sahib was directed to depute

an officer to be present at the next date of hearing

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-5-

with complete record of this case along with posting details of all the PIOs-DTOs in Sri Muktsar

Sahib from 30.11.2011 till date.

On the next date of hearing the respondent DTO had provided a copy of

letter dated 7.12.2013 wherein posting details of all the PIOs, as above, had been mentioned.

From the mentioned details of postings, it appeared that Shri Uma Shankar, PCS and Shri

Sandeep Rishi, PCS were also responsible for the delay in providing the information. Shri

B.M.Singh was not present and had also not filed any explanation. Shri B.M.Singh was given a

last opportunity to file his explanation within 10 days time. Shri Uma Shankar PCS and Shri

Sandeep Rishi, PCS were asked to show cause why penalty be not imposed upon them for their

failure in supplying the information within the stipulated period. They were also directed to be

personally present at the next date of hearing as an opportunity to be heard before imposing

penalty upon them.

On the last date of hearing i.e on 27.3.2014, Shri Uma Shankar, PCS and

Shri Sandeep Rishi, PCS filed their respective written explanations which were taken on record.

Shri Uma Shankar Gupta in his explanation has submitted as under:

It is requested that the undersigned was called for personal hearing vide your

letter dated 11/02/2014. In this regard it is brought to your kind

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-6-

notice that the undersigned was posted as District Transport officer (D.T.O),

Muktsar, Vide Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab order dated 24/10/2014 and

charges of many other departments were also given along with this charge (copy

enclosed herewith). As I had so many additional charges so I have delegated the

duties of RTI/disposal of dak to Additional District Transport Officer (ADTO).

Neither the application of Sh. Jasbir Singh demanding information under RTI

ACT was ever put up to undersigned nor the complainant had ever met the

undersigned personally. It is pertinent to mention that neither any diary/ receipt

number has been marked on the application of Sh. Jasbir Singh nor this

application has been marked by the any officer. If is assumed that appellant had

submitted his application on 30/11/2011 then the time given to provide the

information under RTI Act 2005 is one month. In the mean time, the undersigned

was transferred as Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Dasuya vide Chief

Secretary Order no 6/1/2011-IAS (#)/5469 dated 27/12/11 (copy enclosed

herewith) and I relinquished the charge of DTO on

28/12/11 (copy enclosed herewith). Thus, the undersigned had relinquished the

charge of Shri Muktsar Sahib before the expiry of the time given for giving the

information. No delay had taken place on my part advertently. Despite this, if any

delay has taken place in giving the information, undersigned apologize in view of

the above facts.

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-7-

Similarly Shri Sandeep Rishi, PCS, DTO, Sri Muktsar Sahib in his

explanation has stated as under:-

That brief history of the present case is that the complainant sought the required

information from the respondent as per his application dated 30-11-2011 which

was not however received in the office of the respondent as per our Dispatch

record and the required information could not be provided to the complainant

within lawful time which was quite unintentional on the part of the respondent

and the same was not in the knowledge of the respondent. But the complainant

has misused the process of law and by mentioning the names of the employed

officers within the period of information and directly approached this Honble

Commission with the relief of required information and also prayed for

compensation by way of imposing penalty upon the concerned employees deputed

during period of required information. The complainant has never

given any reminder of never visited the office of the respondent for the required

information, if the same not sent to his within lawful time. No prior notice,

information or intimation regarding the filing of the present complainant before

the Honble Commission has been issued to the respondent by the complainant,

which clearly shows the malafide of the complainant to get the amount of penalty

and to put the respondent under the unnecessary harassment. This Honble

Commission issued bailable

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-8-

warrants of Bhupinder Mohan Singh PCS District Transport Officer Sri Mukatsar

Sahib vide order dated 30-1-2013. Thereafter on 12.3.2013 (date fixed) Sh.

Bhupinder Mohan Singh PCS DTO Sri Muktsar Sahib appeared and stated that he

was not dealing with the subject matter of the complaint as he was placed under

suspension and therefore the application did not come to his notice and he

tendered unqualified apology for not attending the hearings in the Commission

and assured to give the information to the complainant within two weeks time and

the case was adjourned for 9.4.2013. On this date Sh. Bhupinder Mohan Singh

sought exemption through Email message from this Honble Commission, and the

case was put to hearing for 22.5.2013. The case was further adjourned for

25.6.2013, however during the hearing of the case on 9.4.2013 the complainant

was awarded Rs. 2000/- as compensation/ penalty due to the non appearance of

the concerned respondent. Thereafter due to non appearance of Sh. Bhupinder

Mohan Singh then DTO Ropar and due to

non payment of compensation, the compensation in favour of the complainant

was enhanced to Rs. 3000/- and the case was put for 17.7.2013.

That thereafter by tendering unconditional apology District Transport Officer vide

its letter no 767 dated 16.7.2013 intimated this Hobble Commission about the un-

intentional reason of their non appearance in

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-9-

this case due to busy schedule of elections and also intimated the matter that vide

letter no. 4735 dated 14.3.2013 the required information has already been sent to

the complainant and also attached the photo copy of the information sent and also

told about the facts that vide office letter no. 731 dated 11.7.2013 an amount of

Rs. 3000/- of compensation awarded to the complainant, has been duly paid to

him and received by him through demand draft no. 000321 dated 11.7.2013, while

complying with the order dated 25.6.2013passed by this Hobble Commission.

The case was requested to be consigned to the record room having no more merit

in the same. On 17.7.2013 the complainant confirmed the receipt of the amount of

compensation and the Honble Commission asked to show cause why penalty

may not be imposed upon Bhupinder Mohan Singh, the present complainant,

whereas he stated that he has not received copy of order of this Commission dated

25.6.2013 and now has obtained copy of the same. He seeks time to file his

explanation in the matter and the case was

adjourned for 27.8.2013 and then on the same directions for 17.10.2013.

Thereafter vide office letter no. 2058 dated 16.10.2013 it was intimated to this

Honble Commission by the respondent mentioning thereby his inadvertent

inability to appear on 17.10.2013 before this court due to his duty for sending

buses in the Rally at Amritsar alongwith his staff and he sought further

adjournment. On 17.10.2013 the case was further adjourned for 21.11.2013 for

the presentation of the respondent Bhupinder Mohan

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-10-

Singh, DTO alongwith the other directions to the complainant and on 21.11.2013

Bhupinder Mohan Singh (under suspension) came present and submitted before

this Honble Commission that he was placed under suspension by the State

Government and due to this reason he could not file his explanation as per the

orders dated 17.10.2013 of this commission. And he sought time of filing his

written explanation. The case was further adjourned for 9.1.2014 wherein

Bhupinder Mohan Singh, by personally appearing before the court stated that he

was not working as PIO, DTO Sri Mukatsar Sahib at the time of receipt of RTI

request of Sh. Jasbir Singh Complainant. As such the DTO Sri Mukatsar Sahib

was directed to depute an officer to be present at the next date of hearing with

complete record of this case alongwith posting details of all the PIOs-DTOs in Sri

Mukatsar Sahib from 30.11.2011 till date and the case was adjourned for

11.2.2014 and the list of posting officials was duly sent to this Honble

Commission vide officials guilty for delay in providing the information and the

respondent has also been given last opportunity to give his explanation within 10

days time.

That from the whole submission above and from the position of

the case, the compliant has been filed malafidely by the complainant by misusing

the provisions of law, whereas there was every fair and proper opportunity

available to the complainant to give any reminder, notice or any prior

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-11-

intimation to the concerned employees of the respondent department so that his

information could be given to him but he complainant has malafidely preferred to

approach this Honble Commission with some ulterior motive and to put the

replying respondent and other previous employed officers under unnecessary

harassment.

Moreover the required information has already been supplied to the complainant

and penalty amount, as detailed above has been paid to the complainant. As per

office record, no such application was received and put up before the officers.

Even if, any fault is found on the part of the respondent department regarding the

present matter in question, then the answering respondent tenders unconditional

apology for the same.

Hence, it is prayed that by taking lenient view in the preset matter involved and

keeping in view the fulfillment of the relief of the

complainant already prayed by him, so satisfied by the respondent department, the

complaint may kindly be dismissed and file of the present case may kindly be put

to record room. Even then the answering respondent will abide by any suitable

order, which will be passed by this Honble Commission, in the interest of

justice.

On the last date of hearing on 27.3.2014 Shri B.M.Singh, PCS (under suspension)

was not present and he had also not filed any written explanation by the
 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-12-

above date. Shri Sandeep Rishi, PCS is presently posted as DTO, Sri Mukatsar Sahib. Through

his submission he has stated that that the application dated 30.11.2011 of the complainant

seeking information was not received in the office of the respondent and as such the required

information could not be provided to the complainant.

As the application of the RTI seeker was not in the knowledge of both Shri Uma

Shankar Gupta, PCS and Shri Sandeep Rishi, PCS, therefore both these officers cannot be held

responsible for the delay in supply of the information and show cause notices against them are

dropped. After receipt of the complaint from Shri Jasbir Singh RTI seeker, notice of hearing was

issued and at that time Shri B.M.Singh, PCS was working as PIO. Shri B.M.Singh did not attend

most of the hearings and was therefore asked to show cause why penalty should not be imposed

upon him and an opportunity was also given to him to be heard before imposition of penalty. On

the last date of hearing i.e. 27.3.2014, Shri B.M.Singh failed to appear in this Commission and

has also failed to file his written explanation. When the complainant filed his complaint in this

Commission the notice of hearing was sent to the PIO and Shri B.M.Singh was working as PIO

at that time .The exact position regarding the receipt of the RTI request or not should have been

ascertained by the PIO immediately on receipt of the Complaint of the complainant and the

notice of hearing received through this Commission. The PIO was required to file his response

accordingly in this Commission and should have also provided the same to the complainant.Shri

B.M.Singh did not provide any such response and even after receipt if the RTI request vide the

complaint/Notice of hearing he did not

 Complaint Case No.1411/12

-13-

take any action. Even on the last date of hearing i.e. 27.3.2014, Shri B.M.Singh failed to appear

in this Commission and has also failed to file his written explanation. Accordingly as per the

provisions of section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Commission imposes a

penalty of Rs. 25,000/(twenty-five thousand rupees only) on Shri B.M.Singh, PCS for not

having acted as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and for not providing

information to the appellant within the time frame prescribed therein when the request for

supply of information was received by him vide the instant complaint of the complainant through

a notice of hearing sent by this Commission and even after being given many opportunities for

filing his explanation. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Chandigarh is to

recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/ (twenty-five thousand rupees) from Shri B.M.Singh and to

deposit the same with the Government of Punjab under appropriate head of account within eight

weeks time. With these directions the case is disposed of and closed.

Copies of the decision be dispatched to both the appellant and the respondent. A

copy of the order shall also be displayed on the website of the Commission, as per the practice in

vogue.

(NARINDERJIT SINGH)

DATED:7.5.2014 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CC: Copy of the order is sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab,

Chandigarh for necessary action.

 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No.84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Ravinder Sultanwind,

President,
Amritsar Youth Association (Regd.)
C/o Sharma Advertiser,
Mahan Singh Gate Chowk,
Amritsar. Appellant

Versus

1. The Public Information Officer,

Office of the Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar.
2. . The First Appellate Authority,
Office of the Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar.
Respondent

APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

ORDER

Shri Ravinder Sultanwind has filed an appeal with this Commission against the
Public Information Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and notice of hearing was issued to
both the parties vide No. 14406-14408 dated 25.7.2013. In his appeal the appellant has stated
that he has filed his application dated 7.9.2012 with the PIO, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar
seeking information on the following 5 points:-

1. With reference to Memo No. 9/2/2012 of the Punjab Government, Local

Government Department and Diary No. 2094 dated 16.2.2012 regarding the
pendency of any departmental enquiry or Vigilance Enquiry in the promotion
case as Municipal Engineer (Electricity), a photo copy of the report sent to the
Local Government Punjab by the Corporation be provided..
 APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

-2-

2. The name and designation of the officer/official who has prepared the said report.

3. The name of the officer who has approved the said report.

4. Action taken report on the complaint made by Shri Kulwant Singh President
Punjab People Welfare Society (Regd.) dated 24.3.12 and 30.4.12 and status of
action taken by the Commissioner till date.

5. Action taken by the Commissioner on the News item published in Dainik Savera
regarding the theft of electricity by the Executive Engineer of the Corporation.

The appellant has also stated that he has filed first appeal with the First Appellate

Authority on 30.1.2013. The appellant has stated that the First Appellate Authority has issued

directions to the PIO to provide point-wise response to the information seeker as per the Right

to Information Act, 2005 within 15 days from 22.4.2013.

During hearing of this case on 10-10-2013, the respondent had submitted that

the information demanded by the appellant had already been supplied to him vide letter dated

4.10.2013. The appellant had stated that he had not received the letter dated 4.10.2013.

Accordingly the respondent was directed to supply another copy of the letter within one weeks

time through registered post. During the next date of hearing of this case i.e. on 13.11.2013 the

appellant stated that although he had received the information but the same had not been

attested. The appellant further stated that a copy of document referred to in the
 APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

-3-

letter dated 6.9.2013 sent by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to Director

Local Government, Punjab had not been provided to him. The appellant also stated that he had

faced harassment and detriment due to delay in the supply of information and therefore, he

should be given compensation. In view of the submission of the appellant, the public authority

i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-

as compensation to the appellant, through bank draft to be sent through registered post within

10 days time. The PIO, Mr. Surinder .Mohindroo was directed to show cause as to why penalty

should not be imposed upon him for the delay in the supply of information according to the

provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. . On 4.12.2013 the respondent submitted that the compensation

amount had been paid to the appellant. The PIO- Shri Surinder Mohindroo had sought

adjournment of the case due to personal reasons. As a last opportunity, the PIO was directed to

be personally present at the next date of hearing i.e. 28.1.2014.

During the hearing of this case on 28.1.2014 Shri Surinder Mohindroo, Executive

Engineer, the PIO came present and had filed written submission which was taken on record.

The appellant had sought adjournment of the case on 28.1.2014 and therefore the case was

adjourned to 5.3.2014. On 5.3.2014 the appellant as well as Shri Surinder Mohindroo, the PIO

was present. After hearing of the submissions of both the parties, the pronouncement of the

order was reserved.

 APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

-4-

In his submission Shri Surinder Mohindroo, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation,

Amritsar has submitted as under:-

(1) That the RTI application of the appellant was received in the office of the
undersigned on dated 7.9.2012 vide diary No. 1103.

(2) That undersigned respondent has transferred the said letter/application to the
Xen-S.T. through office letter no. PIO/RTI/399 dated 10.9.2012 u/s 5(4) of the
RTI Act, 2005 as the subject matter of the information is more closely related
to the office of the concerned Xen who is also appointed as APIO.

(3) That the concerned Xen S.T. has directly given its response to the appellant
on dated 12.10.2012.

(4) That detailed response has again sent to the information by the concerned
Xen vide office letter dated 13.11.13.

(5) That undersigned respondent who is merely working as Nodal Officer and
has no access and control over the information in question. His job is limited
to pursue the matter so that the information seeker can have access to the
information. In the instant case the undersigned respondent has pursued the
matter and has number of time asked the concerned Xen to provide the
response to the information and this is the maximum he can do so. Being PIO
he has discharged his duty very honestly and delay if any is not contributed to
any malafide or ill-intention involved in its. Apart from the routine job assigned
to his post, the undersigned has to deal with RTO matter. The undersigned
received 60 to 80 applications of RTI per month and apart from this
undersigned respondent has to appear before Honble Commission to make
compliance of their order which is a full day exercise.

(6) The undersigned respondent tenders unconditional apology and undertake to

take due care while dealing the matters related to RTI.

Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances it is humbly

requested to your goodself to drop the penalty
 APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

-5-

proceedings initiated against the undersigned respondent and oblige.

On 17.4.2014 it was notified through the web site of this Commission that the
decision in this appeal case shall be pronounced on 7.5.2014 at 11.00 AM for in the presence of
the parties whosoever would like to attend. Today the Appellant as well as the respondent has
not turned up.

After considering the submissions made by the appellant and the respondents this
Commission observes that the explanation of the Public Officer in this case i.e. Shri Surinder
Mohindroo, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar cannot be accepted as
satisfactory as he had failed to perform the duties of the PIO as the appellant received the
complete information sought by him vide his RTI request dated 7.9.2012 on 28.11.2013. From
the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO was guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7, as per the requirement
of the RTI Act. He had further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raised a
reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. As per Section 7 (1)
State Public Information Officer 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.The plea of the PIO that he had transferred the application
to APIO and the APIO has provided the information directly to the appellant cannot be accepted
as complete information was not provided by the PIO or the APIO even after the directions of
the FAA and complete information was provided as late as 28.11.2013. Clearly the PIO failed in
the proper discharge of his duties.
 APPEAL CASE NO. 1441 OF 2013

-6-

Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act,
2005, this Commission imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/(twenty-five thousand rupees only) on
Shri Surinder Mohindroo, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar for not having
acted as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and for not providing
information to the appellant within the time frame prescribed therein. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation. Amritsar is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/ (twenty-five
thousand rupees) from Shri Surinder Mohindroo, Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar and deposit the same with the Government of Punjab under appropriate head of
account within eight weeks time. With these directions the case is disposed of and closed.

Copies of the decision be dispatched to both the appellant and the respondent. A copy
of the order shall also be displayed on the website of the Commission, as per the practice in
vogue.

(NARINDERJIT SINGH)

DATED:7.5.2014 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

 STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No.32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH

(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Shri Parbodh Chander Bali,

16-Shiv Nagar, Batala Road,
Amritsar.
Appellant.
Versus

The Public Information Officer,

Office of the Chief Secretary to Govt., Punjab,
Chandigarh.
FAA: Chief Secretary to Govt., Punjab,
Chandigarh.
Respondent

Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

ORDER

Shri Parbodh Chander Bali, the appellant filed the present

appeal in this Commission which was received on 15.11.2013. The notice

of hearing dated 9.12.2013 was issued to the PIO, and a copy of the

same was also sent to the appellant. The aforesaid appeal case was last

listed for hearing on 6.3.2014 when Shri K.N.S.Sodhi appeared on behalf

of the appellant-Shri Parboth Chander Bali and Shri Mohinder Singh

Prashar, Under Secretary, office of the Chief Secretary, Government of

Punjab, Chandigarh along with Shri Amandeep Singh, Sr.

Assistant
 Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

-2-

appeared on behalf of the respondent. After hearing both the parties, the

order was reserved on 6.3.2014. On 15.4.2014 it was notified through

the web site of this Commission that the decision in this appeal case

shall be pronounced on 7.5.2014 at 11.00 AM in the presence of the

parties whosoever would like to attend. Today the Appellant as well as

the respondent has not turned up.

The appeal filed by Shri Parbodh Chander Bali relates to his

RTI request dated 8.7.2013 addressed to the PIO, office of the Chief

Secretary to Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. During hearing on

23.1.2014, the PIO filed written reply which was taken on record. The

respondent also submitted that a copy of the written reply had already

been sent to appellant. During hearing of this case on 23.1.2014, Shri

K.N.S. Sodhi present on behalf of the appellant had confirmed the receipt

of the written reply.

The facts of this case are that the appellant had filed his RTI

request dated 8.7.2013 and subsequently after not getting response from

the PIO, had filed a complaint with this Commission which was taken up

as the complaint case No. 3076 of 2013 and was heard by Shri Harinder
 Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

-3-

Pal Singh Mann, Honble State Information Commissioner. This

complaint case was disposed of by the above Bench of State Information
Commission, Punjab with the following order dated 12.11.2013:-
Complaint No. 3076 of 2013

Present: (i) None is present on behalf of the

Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amandeep Singh, Sr. Assistant on behalf of
the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Vide RTI application dated 08.07.2013, addressed to the
PIO Sh. Parbodh Chander Bali had sought information on six
points.
3. The present case has been filed with the commission,
received in its office on 21.08.2013.
4. Sh. Amandeep Singh, Sr. Assistant appearing on behalf of
the Respondent states that the sought for
information has already been sent to the Complainant.
Complainant is absent. The Complainant is not present even
on the last date of hearing. It appears he is satisfied with the
information provided.
5. Since, information has been provided as per record, no
further cause of action is left and the
 Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

-4-

complaint is closed and disposed of. Copies of the order be

sent to the parties.

Sd/-

(Harinder Pal Singh Mann)

State Information Commissioner

Dated: 12th November, 2013

Subsequently the appellant has filed this appeal also. The PIO

vide his submission has provided parawise comments regarding various

issues pointed out by the appellant. The respondent has submitted that

complete information as available in record, has been provided to the

appellant. The appellant has stated in his submission that PIO has no

documentary proof in support of the reason public interest (Lok hit).

The PIO has submitted that a copy of noting sheet regarding the transfer

relating to which the information has been sought by the appellant has

been provided and the reason mentioned in the transfer order is in

public interest. The PIO has submitted that as per the Right to

Information Act, 2005, only such information can be supplied under the

Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held

under the control of the Public Authority.

 Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

-5-

The PIO has submitted that he is not supposed to create the information
and has submitted that as per the Right to Information Act 2005
"Information" means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data
material held in any electronic form and information relating to any
private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being in force.

After considering the submissions of both the parties

this Commission observes that the RTI Act provides access to all

information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined

reading of section 3 and the definitions of information and right to

information under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public

authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or

abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information,

subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act.

But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public

authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained

under any law or the rules or regulations of the public

 Appeal Case No.2505 of 2013

-6-

authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority,

to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to

an applicant .A public authority is also not required to furnish

information which require drawing of inferences.

Accordingly the case is disposed of and closed. Copies of the

decision be dispatched to both the appellant and the respondent. A copy

of the order shall also be displayed on the website of the Commission, as

per the practice in vogue.

DATED: 7.5.2014 (NARINDERJIT SINGH)

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER