Legal Wizard
19 December 2009 at 08:47
Sir/Madam
Whether pre Recruitment training for SC/ST is mandatory under law? if yes what is the provision under law.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
19 December 2009 at 01:22
Which provision of law confers jurisdiction on courts in India to Legislate?
Anonymous
18 December 2009 at 21:29
Dear Sirs,
I got a car financed by a finance company and they got my post dated cheques {i:e 15th} of every month and promised me the cheque will be deposited on 15th of every month and on next day {i:e 16th}. In meantime I used arrange funds and deposit it in my bank on 16th of every month. But except two instalments the other cheque given by me started coming to my bank on 15th it self and got returned.My finance Company now is Charging for Cheque Bounce Charges and other extra Charges.As well my Reputation in my bank is also got spoiled.
Please give Solution and advice whether I can go to Consumer Court or High Court for my Mental agony
Rajneesh Madhok
17 December 2009 at 21:07
Today was the hearing before State Information Commission, Punjab regarding resumption of my plot by Improvement Trust, Phagwara. Kindly suggest the way out. Department resumed plot in 2005 and canceled resumption order within days by passing resolution. But the department has not approved so far the resolution
Present: Rajneesh Madhok Complainant in person.
*******, for PIO, for the respondent- department.
MY VERSION:
1. The contents of the case is that the Improvement Trust, Phagwara had resumed my plot due to non construction made on it, whereas I had been paying Non-construction charges leviable by Improvement Trust time to time.
2. My plea is that because of lack of clarity by the Improvement Trust Phagwara, the information demanded by me regarding the action taken on my appeal to the Deputy Director, Local Government, Punjab and two reminders sent by the Hon’ble Deputy Director and the correspondence made in this regard has been declared by the PIO that the said information is not traceable.
3. The Information Commissioner has not listened to my pleadings though dictated that you have asked so many irrelevant questions. I said Sir, the questions are concerned with my plot.
4. The Information Commissioner said that the information has been provided the points asked by you.
5. The information commissioner provided me the date of inspection pertaining to the file and directed the PIO to provide me the required papers.
6. The PIO has sent me uncertified copies of the documents.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER:
Before State Information Commission, Punjab
Rajneesh Madhok Versus Executive Officer
Ref: Second Appeal under Section 19 of R.T.I. Act., 2009
Written Submissions on behalf of Public Information Officer, Improvement Trust, Phagwara
Preliminary Objections
1. That the present appeal is not maintainable as the detailed information has already been provided to the appellant.
On Merits
1. That Para No. 1 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. The complainant/ appellant is not owner of plot No. 683, situated at Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara. However, it is admitted that complainant was owner of plot No. 683, but the said plot has been resumed by the Improvement Trust, Phagwara due to non-construction. It is admitted that complainant had approached Deputy Director, Local Government, Jalandhar regarding his plot, but before approaching Deputy Director, the resolution regarding cancellation of resumption of plot has been passed by the Improvement Trust regarding the plot of the complainant on 14.02.2005 and has been forwarded to the Local Government. It is pertinent to mention here that Local Governement has not approved the resolution of Trust till date.
2. That Para No. 2 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect., hence denied. Appellant had sought information from our department vide Letter Dated 29.08.2009 and all informations was given to the complainant vide Letter No. 1023, Dated 25.09.2009, Point wise reply is given here as under:-
2.1 That in reply ot Para No. 2.1 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the reply has been given to the Deputy Director, Jalandhar regarding the references made in the appeal.
2.2 That in reply to Para No.2.2 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the reply/ information has been provided to the appellant.
2.3 That in reply to Para No. 2.3 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the detailed reply and information has been provided to the appellant regarding resumption of plot and other proceedings.
2.4 That in reply to para No. 2.4 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that photocopies of correspondence between Improvement Trust, Phagwara and Deputy Director, Local Governement has been provided to appellant.
2.5 That in reply to para No. 2.5 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the answering repondent is not having any final decision passed by the Hon’ble Deputy Director.
3. That Para No. 3 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. The appellant has not asked for any information regarding inward letters & reply made at the time of first appeal, so he is not entitled for the same in second appeal. However, it is made clear that appellant can take all necessary documents and information by filing fresh representation.
4. That Para no. 4 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. All information has been provided by P.I.O. to the appellant.
5. That para No. 5 of the Ground of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has moved an application for information under the act on 29.08.2009 and detailed reply was given to the complainant regarding his 22 queries along with documents. Appellant has not came before this commission in appeal on that very questions and is misleading this Hon’ble Commission by varying the form of questins mentioned in the application datd 29.08.2009.
6. That in reply to Para No. 6 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that answering P.I.O. can produce the original record before this commission if directed by this Hon’ble Commission.
7. That Para No. 7 of the grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied, Necessary information required has already been provided to the complainant.
8. RgR oe Bi, 8 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied, the Appellant is not entitled to demand any Affidavit from the answering respondent.
9. That Para No. 9 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied, The detailed record and information has already been provided to the complainant.
10. That Para No. 10 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. There is no negligence on the part of P.I.O. and no action is to be required to be tken against the P.I.O.
11. That Para No. 11 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. The complainant has no locus standi to demand the departmental action against the P.I.O.
12. That in reply to Para No. 12 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the photocopies have already been provided to complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that no certified copy has been demanded by the complainant in question No. 18,19,20 and 22.
13. That Para No. 13 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. The detailed reply has been given to the complainant.
14. That Para No. 14 of the Grounds of Appeal is incorrect, hence denied. All information has been provided to the complainant, so there arises no questin of deemed denial of information.
15. That in reply to Para No. 15 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the information has been provided to the complainant within one month from the date of application.
16. That in reply to Para Np 16 of the Grounds of Appeal, it is submitted that the information has been provided to the appellant within stipulated period and the same does not amount to deemed refusal.
Reply to Prayer Clause in Second Appeal
That in reply to para No. 1 to 14 of the prayer Clause, it is humbly submitted that complainant/ appellant is misusing the rights provided under the information act. The detailed reply to all questions have already been given to the appellant. The appellant has filed the present second appeal by changing the nature of the questions in application and in first appeal. The Second Appel filed by the appellant/ Complainant may kindly be dismissed with some special heavy cost.
Datd. 16.12.09 Submitted By,
………………Respondent
Public Information Officer,
Improvement Trust, Phagwara
====================================================
Rajnesh madhok,
B-xxx/63, nehru nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
Tele-fax: 01824-262569; E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com
pawan sharma
15 December 2009 at 10:40
Pl, provid full coments on Art-233 of the contitutino of India.
Anonymous
14 December 2009 at 23:48
hello sir
Respected sir
,myself dr sagar , a veterinary doctor (Maharashtra state veterinary counsil ).I am partialy deaf candidate of open catogory
.In advertisement of Livestock development officer advertisement no-103\2009 (under backlog vacancy )there are 10 seat for physiclly handicap candidate, out of 10 seat, 4 seat for partially deaf.(plz see file attached) as in this backlog seat there was no seat for OPEN. catagory
advertisement given below
Advertisement Number – 103/2009, Item No. 01 File No. 186(1)(2)(42)/7217-SD/XV-A
Applications are invited for filling 51 posts of Live Stock Development Officer, Maharashtra Animal Husbandry Service, Gr-A
(Post Under Backlog)
Details regarding vacancies are as below :-
1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Castes converted to Buddhism - 3
2) Scheduled Tribes - 19+9*+1
3) Denotified Tribes (A) - 6+2*
4) Nomadic Tribes (B) - 1+1*
5) Special Backward Class5+2*
6) Other Backward Classes - 2
( * Indicates posts reserved for ladies, if available)
(Out of 51 posts, 4 posts are reserved for Physically challenged for Partially Sighted, 4 posts reserved for Physically
challenged for Partially Deaf and 2 posts reserved for physically challenged for Locomotor Disability- One leg affected)
( Indicates post reserved for Meritorious Sportsmen, if available)
[ The reservation specified for the D.T.(A) & N.T.(B) shall be intertransferable. If suitable candidates for the posts
reserved for D.T.(A) & N.T.(B) are not available, the posts shall be filled by suitable candidates form any of the other
categories amongst D.T.(A), N.T.(B), N.T.(C) & N.T.(D) as per Govt. orders/Act.]
2. RESERVATION FOR PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED PERSONS :
2.1 As per G.R., Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, No.2404/C.R.97/ADF-
1, dated 10th February, 2005 amongst physically challenged candidates only partially sighted, partially deaf and
one leg affected (only those who can walk properly) candidates are eligible for this posts and candidates who
submit the certificate mentioning clearly such type of disability will only be considered for the post.
2.2 The reservation for Physically Challenged persons is as per Government Circular, Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department No. Apang-2007/C.R.61/Sudhar-3, dated 20th April, 2007y.
sir plz see file attached
(As per goverment rule for filling backlog vacancy which is given in office memorandum of no 36035\3\2004\esst(res)of goverment of india ministry of personnel ,public grievances and pensions Department of person training New delhi 29th dec 2005 which is avalible on internet.In ths document on page no 7 to 8, in heading of Horizontal Reservation for person with disabilities, as per this para if physically handicap post for open catagory if not availble ,it should abjusted in future vacancy. )
please give early reply that my application is accepted or not?
Rajneesh Madhok
14 December 2009 at 19:56
To The Honourable Chief State Information Commissioner (Punjab),
SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh Phone: 0172-4630054,
SCO 32-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, Phone: 0172-4630074
Chandigarh-160017
E-mail: scic@punjabmail.gov.in
SUB: REQUEST TO DESCRIBE THE PUNJABI FONT IN WHICH ORDERS HAVE BEEN MADE ON SICP WEBSITE
Sir,
The State Information Commission Punjab has started making orders in Punjabi Font. Sir, there are 184 Punjabi fonts. No body has downloaded all the available fonts. As you know in Punjabi fonts the orders can be read in the particular font in which it has written if you have downloaded the specific font on your computer. I took the professionals help to read the order made by Hon’ble commissioner S. Darbara Singh Kahlon, and continued to download all the available fonts. Up till 60 fonts I could not read the order. As in English language, the order can be read in whatever font it has been loaded. The type of different fonts may be different but in Punjabi language one can not read the document, secondly if one can read in other fonts one can not understand the meaning if it is in different font. So, kindly go through Anmol lipi, amarlipi, anmol true type font, Amrlipi, gurblib font, gurbib_ font, LMP_TARA font, Amar LIP_L, AMR-Heavy, Anmol_l, anmol_t, anmol_s, anmol_K, gur_rais and so on the names are in 184. Unless and until You have downloaded all those fonts and then keep on searching in which font it has been loaded. Then only you can be successful in reading not like English. As it can be read in any one font it has been loaded but should be in English.
Sir, it is a tedious problem for every citizen of Punjab to view the orders. Though it is loaded on the internet but kindly let us know how one can read unless one don’t know in which font it has been loaded.
Sir, it is very disgraceful for all the RTI activists of Punjab to go through such a hardship to read the orders. I would like to brought the matter in your knowledge to kindly describe in the website of the State Information Commission Punjab that the orders will be downloaded in the specific Punjabi font and the persons who like to view the orders can download the specific font and kindly make it mandatory to load the orders in the specific font only. Sir, we are information seeker so the decisions should be provided to the public.
Sir one keep on tossing that the matter will be loaded in this font or that font. It is a matter of ethics and should be decided in public’s favour due to the responsibility of the State information commission to provide the information without any sort of hassles. The system adopted to provide decisions by the State Information Commission Punjab is not fair and irresponsible to maintain the people friendly decisions. The simple Punjabi language font in which the particular decision has been made kindly search by yourself without going to the particular font. I am sure you will face the same problem which I got. I got successful after loading all 184 fonts of Punjabi language and then move to one by one to read the matter. It took continuous labour of 8 hours without fail.
Kindly look in to the matter and do the needuly.
Rajneesh madhok,
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com
ashok kumar jain
13 December 2009 at 23:58
Sir , I have been duly appointed Notary by Govt of Rajsince 1992. My certificate of Notary was to be renewed from 21.07.2007 for which I duly applied to the Govt. but the matter was pending. It is disclosed to me that The Govt of Raj decided not to renew the certificate of all the Notaries pending since 2007 on the ground of certain amendment in the Notaries Rules and consequently rejected the Renewal applications of about 600 Notaries of the State, including me, without assigning any reason . is the Govt of Raj is empowered to do so? Is the decision of the Govt is legal and Constitutional. If not what remedy is available to me? I have file a Writ in HC Raj which is pending.
venkatesh Rao
13 December 2009 at 12:39
Sir/Madam,
let me know whether a subordinate judge (say, a magistrate) in Karnataka in bound by a single judge's judgment of Delhi High Court when no contradicting judgments of either the Karnataka High Court or The Supreme Court is available?
Whether a High Court can strike down any provisions of the Central Acts?
Whether slighting the judgments of persuasive value by a subordinate judge amounts to contempt?
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
जब हर शाख पे उल्लू बैठा हो अंजामे गुलिस्तां क्या होगा।
Kindly suggest how the informations can be collected from the PIO
प्रिय मित्र,
हाल में मैं ने, नगर पालिका फगवाड़ा में पदासीन सुप्रिंटेडेंट से राज्य सूचना कमीशन के आदेश पर छान बीन (इंस्पैकशन) उपरांत जब जाने पर हाथ मिलाते हुए अल्विदा ली तो उस ने कहा कि
मघोक जी, "जब हर शाख पे उल्लू बैठा हो अंजामे गुलिस्तां क्या होगा।"
मैंने भी यह जुम्ला छोड़ दिया--
"अंधेर नगरी चौपट राजा, टके सेर भाजी टके सेर खाजा"
भैय्या अब दिन दूर नहिं जब फल और भाजी खरीदने के लिए अब तो पर्सनल लोन लेना पडेगा
तभी तो महंगाई की दर पिछले सप्ताह् सबसे निचले पायदान पर सुस्ता रही है,
"****** का हाथ, आम आदमी के साथ" है,
महंगाई दर जब शून्य के करीब पहुंच गई है, तो यह मान लिया जाए कि बाज़ार अब तो टके सेर भाजी और टके सेर खाजा वाली स्थिती में पहुच गया है,
आखिरकार मैंने इन शब्दों से विदा ली,
''बरबाद गुलिस्तां करने को एक ही उल्लू काफी था ,अंजामे गुलिस्तां क्या होगा ,हर शाख पे उल्लू बैठा है''
Before The State information Commission Punjab,
Sco 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road, Phagwara V/s Public information Officer, Muncipal Council Phagwara.
AC NO: 883/2009
COMPLAINT U/S 18 OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY PIO, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PHAGWARA AS PER INSPECTION MADE ON 18TH DECEMBER 2009
List of Photocopies required from Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar & Rajinder Kumar SSO/Kewal Krishan Sudhir, Central Town, Phagwara’s File of Sudhir Sweets.
1. Certified copy of Document containing Site map No. 81, List of papers attached.
2. Certified copy of Form A Notice to construct under building Bye laws framed by Municipal Council.
3. Certified copy of memo No. 212 ME dt 06/07/09 Regarding the approval about construction of the building
4. Certified copy of Note Sheet to M.E. issued by PIO.
5. Certified copy of Note Sheet of site plan not clearly visible of Proposed building plan of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Sh. Rajinder Kumar SS/o Sh. Kewal krishan Situated at Central Town, Phagwara.
6. Certified copy of Blue Sheet Site map, Proposed plan of Building plan. There are two site maps in the register. Both of the site maps are different. This map is different from the site map supplied to me earlier.
7. Certified copy of Affidavit for building plan dated 18/6/09 atttested by Notary.
8. Certified Copy of Indemnity Bond of basement. The sanctioned Affidavit is for basement over Onkar nagar on Rs 40/- Non Judicial paper. Onkar Nagar is situated at about 3-4 kms from Central Town and is situated at the end point of municipal council limits.
9. Certified copy of National building organization schedule for construction of building in public & private sector.
10. Certified copy of Registeration Deed copy for the valuation of building amounting to Rs 6,80,000/-. The Stamp duty paid on the papers is 40,500/- Nine pages as per the description as under 8 Sheets of stamp paper valuing Rs 5,000/- and one sheet valuing Rs. 500/-. The registration deed signed by Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Chana. The street measuing 35’9” is depicted in the map.
11. Certified copy of Rough Sketch of Land, prepared for the site, point situated at Central Town, Phagwara. Apllicant is Gurmeet Kaur Chana, Rakesh Kumar and approval made by Approved Surveyor Muncipal Council Phagwara depicting street of 35’9”
12. Certified Copy of Notice under 195/195-A, Punjab Muncipal Act 1911. Ref Memo No. 348/ME dated 11-08-09.
13. Certified Copy of Note Sheet of Notice issued regarding construction violating commercial site plan. Note sheet of Notice regarding the stoppage of construction issued on 1/9/09 in which Basement allowed by the Municipal council is 1102 Sq Ft but construction made on 1900 Sq ft. the notice has been issued U/S 195 D.
14. Certified Copy of Notice issued under Sec 195-D. The carbon copy has been placed in the file regarding notice to offender.
15. Certified copy of Notice of Revised plan of building to be submitted vide Memo No. 467/ME dated 29-09-09.
16. Certified copy of Note Sheet of orders to stop construction regarding the construction going on violating the bye laws. C/o Sudhir Sweets. The document is concerned with construction that started on 07-10-2009.
17. Certified Copy of document --Memo No. 493/ME dated 09/10/09 regarding above mentioned file
The documents list regarding the File of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar SSO/ Kewal Krishan Sudhir, Central Town, Phagwara Has been demanded by the appellant duly authenticated but the PIO has not supplied the concerned documents so far.
Additional Documents required :
Minutes of meeting in which the decisions have been made regarding the approval of sanctioned plan.
The documents from Despatch Register:Started from 01-04-2009
1. Page No. 26, Dispatch Register of 2009-10. This register has been authenticated by ME Phagwara started from 01-04-2009.Copy of Entry No. 348. Notice issued to the violator and the endorsed documents (Additional intimation ) supplied to the SDM, Vide Memo No. 349 and DSP Phagwara vide
2. Memo No. 435 Page No. 31 of Dispatch Register regarding notice to Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar. The notice is under 195-D.
3. Memo No. 467 Page no. 34 notice to Ashwani Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar directing them to provide Revised building plan.
4. memo No. 493 Notice under Section 220 to Mr. Ashwani Kumar and others.
Other Serious difficulties in inspection:
1. Movement Register not provided for inspection.
2. File regarding modification has not been mainatained by Muncipal Council, Phagwara.
3. The fees deposited in Muncipal Council record/ & date of submission demanded. But no record of deposit of fees. The last date and the Demand notice along with the register has not been presented for inspection. The fees paid to different departments to sanction and approval has not been provided.
4. Complaince of notices where it is noted---not provided.
5. Movement of officials and staff not found on the said date as per notices===the inspection conducted by which officer and authorized issuing authority of the notice not provided.
6. Register regarding date of sanction of site maps, amount of fees deposited in record; ate of deposit of fees, Last date of deposit of fees, Payment details. The photocopies of G-8 regarding deposit of fees not provided.
7. Projected cost of the building documents not provided.
8. The movement register of documents not provided.
9. List of documents to be provided to me during inspection duly signed by the PIO and requested him to provide the documents as it is mandatory to provide the documents required on the date of inspection but the PIO failed to provide the authenticated Photo copies of the documents.
10. I requested PIO to note down the next date of inspection if the documents pertaining to the above mentioned building has been kept in another file then the next date of inspection kindly be noted which had been previously entered as 26th Decemeber on which the PIO not agreed, again on 25th the PIO said it is holiday, Again on 24th he said it is holiday. But the date mentioned in 23rd Dec 2009 is my previous engagement. So, as on 24th Dec 2009 there is no holiday and the inspection if it is will be made on 24th of Dec 2009 at 11 AM. If the PIO permits so.
Yours sincerely,
Rajneesh Madhok
At the end of the note sheet I have mentioned that I am thankful to PIO for cooperative attitude during inspection
Rajneesh Madhok
Encl: Photocopies of Inspection report in four pages. PIO denied documents.