Case filed on instigation of PSEB
Rajneesh Madhok
(Querist) 05 January 2010
This query is : Resolved
The RTI application had been made and the information collected from the Punjab State Electricity board.
Now the new formula had been made that the case had been filed on the applicant. Kindly suggest what is the way out. Whether the CWP can be filed in High court now as we have prove that from the last two years the money had been deposited in the account of PSEB and there is deficiency on the part of PSEB
Rajneesh Madhok,
B=xxx/63, nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara (Pb)
In the court of Shri****. PCS, Addl, Civil Judge
(Senior Division), ******
1. U***S/o B**S/o P
2. A***S/o K***S/o B** through attorney H**S/o A** both residents of G**. The : P**, Dist J**
*****Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Ki** S/o N** S/o K**
2. N** S/o K** both residents of Railway Road, Opp ****, P***, Dist K
3. K***E***W**, G.T. Road, G** through K**
4. P.S.E.B. G** through its S.D.O. G***. The, P**. Dist. J**
Defendents
Suit for partition of abadi land with mates and bounds as comprised in Khewat No. **Khatuani**, KHhasra*** situated in the area of village A**, The P**, Dist J**, bounded as:-
East”- G.T. Road,
Wst: Railway Line,
North:- D.E.C.
South: Bulding of Nagar Panchayat, G**. The: P**.Dist J** shown green in the site plan marked by the words ABCD.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting/ transferring electic line already existing and is shown in blue colour in the sit plan to the electric poles W,X,Y and Z shown red in the site plan illegally forcibly.
AND
In the alternative
Suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 4 to remove the electric poles W,X,Y,Z in the site plan.
Sir,
The plaintiff respectfully admits as under:-
1. That the plaintiff No 2, A** S/o K** r/o Vo;;age G, The P**. District J has apponted his son H** as his lawful attorney and the resent suit on behalf of plaintiff is being verified, signed and filed by H** Attorney on behalf of plaintiff No. 2, A**/
2. That originally the property indispute was jointly owned by the plainfiffs, U** * K**, S***. The LRs of Shiv Sngh have sold proerty ot defendant No. 1 & 2 without getting it partitioned and the plaintiff No. 1 &2 are owners of 27 marlas 6 Sarsahi each and the defendeant No 1 &2 are the joint owners of land measuing 27 marlas 5 Sarsahi each and defendant no 3 is in Separate possession of the same and he has constructed house/ building in the said property.
3. That the defendents no 1&2 with connivance of defendant No 4 have tried to transfer the electric line where the electric line is already in existence and shown blue in the site plan and got installed electic poles shown red W,X,Y,Z. The defendents want to transfer the already existing line through these poles i.e. W,X,Y,Z shown red in the site plan illegally , forcibly.
4. That the proerty in suit is still joint and is still to be partitioned. The plaintiffs are in possession of the poperty on the Southern side of the property of the defendants and after partition they are entitled to get 8 marlas. If the defendants succeed to transfer the electric line through the property of the plaintiffs , which may be allotted to the plaintiffs afer partition then value and utitility of the property will be diminished and the plaintiff shall have to suffer an irreparable loss and special inujury which cannot be compensated in terms of money at the later stage.
5. That the plaintiffs approached to the defendants and requested them not to transfer electric line without getting the land partitioned. But the defendants who are of adamant nature refused to do so hend finding no other way the plaintiffs have filed suit for partition by mates and bounds.
6. That the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs and against the defendants about a week agao when the defendant No. 4 has installed poles at point W,X,Y,Z in the land in dispute illegally, forcibly.
7. That no litigation is pending or decided between the same parties to the suit, on the same subject matter by any court of law.
8. That the property in dispute is situated in the area of village A, The: P, District J which is within the civil jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore the Hon’ble court has got the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit.
9. That the value of the suit so far the suit for declaration is concerned is Rs 200/- for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and for the relief of relief of mandatory injunction the value of the suit is fixed for Rs 200/- and the value of suit for the purposes of permanent relief is Rs 130/-. Therefore, total court fee i.e. Rs. 20/- +Rs.20/- +Rs 13/-= Rs 53/- is affixed on the plaint.
10. It is therefore prayed that a decree for partition of abadi land with mates and bounds as comprised in Khewat No. ***, Khatauni No.***, situated in the area of village A**. The P**, District J** fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, as shown green in the site plan attached as marked by the words ABCD ma kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is further prayed that a decree for permanent injuction restraining the defendants from erecting/ transferring already existing and is shown in blue colour in the site plan through the electric poles W,X,Y,Z shown red in the site plan illegally , forcibly may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 4 to remove the electric poles W,X.Y,Z. shown red in the site plan may also kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice and equity.
Any other relief which has not been specifically prayed for and this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper, the plaintiffs are entitled to, may also kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the interst of justice and equity.
Verification Plaintiffs
Verified that that the contents of
The plaint in para No. 1 to 5 are true and correct U***
To the best of my knowledge and lpara no. 6 to 9 are legal A***
And para no. 10 is that of prayer clause. Attorney H****
Verified at P** Through
Dated: *** Sh. I.***Advocate
P
In the court of Sh. H***, PCS, Addl. Civil Judge
(Senior Division), P
1. U** S/oB**S/o P***
2. A**S/o K** S/o B***
Through attorney H** S/o A** both residents of G**, tehsil P, District J
******Plaintiffs/ applicants
Versus
1. K***S/o N** S/o K**
2. N***S/o K** residents of Railway Road, Opposite ******, P***
District K**,
3. P.S.E.B. G***, through its S.D.O Punjab State Electricity Board, G**, Tehsil P**, Dist**J**
*******Defendants/ Respondents
(Suit for partition by metes and bounds of the land in dispute, suit
for mandatory injuction)
Applciation U/S 39 rule 1 &2 read with section 151 CPC for issuance of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from erecting/ transferring electric line already existing which is shown in blue colour in the site plan to the electric poles W,X,Y,Z shown red in the site plan attached from the land as comprised in Khewat No. ***Khatauni No ***, Khasra No. *** situated in the area of village A**. Tehsil **. Dist J, bounded as:-
East :-- Road
West:-- Railway Line
Nort:-D.E.C.
South:-Building of Nagar Panchayat, G, T, P, Dist J
As shown in the site plan as green and marked by the words ABCD, illegally, forcibly or through any other way, till the pendency of the main suit.
Sir,
The applicant/ plaintiffs respectfully submit as under:-
1. That the plaintiff/ applicant has today filed above captioned suit in this Hon’ble court, in which no futher date has so far been fixed as yet.
2. That the contents of the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application for detail of facts and circumstances.
3. That the respondents have started threatening to the applicants that they will illegally, forcibly pass through the electric line through the poles shown W,X,Y,Z in the site plan in green colour and poles shown in red colour in connivance with each other. If the respondents succeed in doing so, then the value and utility of the land as detailed above maintained and in note of the plaint. Application, then the applicants shall have to suffer and irreparable loss and special injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money at the later stage.
4. That the applicants have a good prima facie case and balance of convenience also lines in favour of the applicants and against the respondent.
5. That the provision of issuing the notice to the respondents may also kindly be dispensed with taking in view the urgent nature of the matter under issue.
6. It is therefore prayed that the ad=interim injuntion restraining the respondents from erecting/ transferring electric line already existing which is shown in blue colour in the site plan to the electric poles W,X,Y,Z shown red in the site plan attached from the land as fully detailed in the head note of the application situated in the area of village A**. Tehsil**, ** as shown in the site plan in in green colur and marked by the words ABCD illegally, forcibly or through any other way, till the pendency of the main suit, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants in the interst of justice.
Verification:- Verified that the contents of the application Plaintiff/ Applicant
Above are ture and correct to the best of knowledge .
Verified at P Through
Sh. I, Advocate
P
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 January 2010
This is a wrong step on the part of PSEB. If your suit is pending before civil judge, then you move an application and seek stay order against the proposed action of PSEB and on failure move before HC in revisional jurisdiction. Writ is a last resort.
Rajneesh Madhok
(Querist) 05 January 2010
Sir,
This suit has been made against us by PSEB. Though we had been planning to file suit against the PSEB. As there was negligence on their part as we had deposited in lakhs for shifting of HT Line from our plot. The PSEB officials had not done the job and it was evident from their submission of the documents that there are so many ommissions and commissions. Now The PSEB officials have instigated the neighbour to file suit on us and so they have filed suit. Now what can we do. Whether we don't have option to file CWP in High Court against PSEB as the money had been deposited about two years back and nothing had been done by PSEB. The orders made by the SIC are as under. The above mentioned case has been filed against us by the neighbour. What is the solution at this stage. Whether we can file C.W.P. in High court or not.
Rajneesh Madhok
http://www.infocommpunjab.com/htm/documents/2009/16.12.2009_Orders(2)10AM.doc
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Rajneesh Madhok,
B-XXX/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401. --------Appellant
Vs.
1. PIO, O/O SDO,
Pb. State Electricity Board, Goraya.
&
2. Executive Engineer-cum-Appellate Authority,
City Sub Division, Pb. State Electricity Board,
Goraya(Pb.) --------Respondent
AC-508-2009
Present: Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant in person.
Sh. Gurchetan Dass, AEE on behalf of the APIO with Sh. Palvinder Singh, AAE.
ORDER:
Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant states that he was required to inspect the file dealing with the removing of high tension wire from the land of Sh. Narinder Pal today. This is not correct as last order of the Commission which were dictated in the presence of both the parties states as “The entire original file dealing with the application of Sh. Narinder Pal for removing high tension wire from his land, in respect of which the RTI application dated 18.04.2009 has been filed by Sh. Rajneesh Madhok is being carried by the PIO. Appellant is permitted to inspect the said file today and to take any additional papers, copies of which are required by him (in addition to photo copies of this file already supplied to him)â€. Sh. Gurchetan Dass, AEE on behalf of the APIO with Sh. Palvinder Singh, AAE confirms that on the last date also they were carrying the file and that Appellant had duly inspected it.
2. However, since the file was once again available, and Appellant has been permitted to inspect it again and list of papers required by him should be given to the PIO with copy to the Commission and his receipt should be taken on that list by the PIO, after providing the information to
AC-508-2009 -2-
him duly attested, since he is carrying the seal of office with him. PIO has certified that the full file dealing with the matter contained in the RTI application has since been seen by him and there are no papers other then this. With this, PIO states that full information asked for by Appellant has been supplied to him, free of cost.
3. Appellant states that information asked for by him as per item no. 6(c) of his application has not been supplied. However, this was replied to by the PIO vide his reply dated 01.10.2009 to the Commission para no. 6, mentioning that the documents requested for are not available in the office, but, in the Head office of the electricity board at Patiala (in the language Branch). The said documents can be obtained from the office on payment basis :- (i) Sales Regulations (total pages 448). (ii) Supply Code Act, 2007, (total page 66), (iii) Employee Conduct Regulations & Rules (till pages 25) total 539 pages, amount to be paid 539/-. The Appellant stated that these papers should be supplied to him under the RTI Act. PIO stated that there are priced publications, available in the market and also with the head office and can be purchased and obtained. I agree with the PIO, it is not the intention of the Act that priced publications, otherwise available in the market should be supplied through RTI. RTI Act is to promote transparency in Government working and to open up the record of decisions taken by Government which affect citizens. It is not a mode for getting priced publications containing printed Rules and Regulations of different departments. PIO has also stated that all rules and regulations, applicable and relevant to the present case of shifting of high tension wires from the field of Sh. Narinder Pal have also supplied separately to him and the Appellant also admits that.
3. While parting with this case, it is observed that in the order of the Commission dated 06.10.2009, it had been mentioned in para 2 as under :-
“Today, Sh. Gurchetan Dass, AE has presented letter dated 01.10.2009 addressed to the Commission (covering letter)
AC-508-2009 -3-
containing point wise reply on each of the 15 points alongwith annexures total 24 numbers. He states that this information was sent to Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant through Junior Engineer Sh. Kulwinder Singh who reported that he has refused to accept it. After seeing the original report of the Junior Engineer, it is seen that it is concerned with another RTI applicant Sh. Narinder Pal and not with Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant. Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant states that no information has been received by him after the Appeal was filed by him. A set of papers have been given to him today against due receiptâ€.
4. The Commission observes that it had not been noticed on that day that the entire RTI application of Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant concerns the case of Sh. Narinder Pal and the information had already been supplied to Sh. Narinder Pal who had separately applied for the same.
With these observations after supply of full information, the case is hereby disposed of.
Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
16.12. 2009
(LS)
==========================================
http://www.infocommpunjab.com/htm/documents/2009/update%2004.11.2009_Orders(2)10AM.doc
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Sh. Rajneesh Madhok,
B-XXX/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401. --------Appellant
Vs.
1. PIO, O/O SDO,
Pb. State Electricity Board, Goraya.
&
2. Executive Engineer-cum-Appellate Authority,
City Sub Division, Pb. State Electricity Board,
Goraya(Pb.) --------Respondent
AC-508-2009
Present: Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant in person.
Sh. Gurchetan Das, AEE on behalf of APIO with Sh. Palwinder Singh, AAE.
ORDER
Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant has made a written submission dated 04.11.2009 showing deficiencies numbering 22 (total number of points in his RTI application are 15). A copy of the same has been supplied to the PIO. PIO on his part has also given letter dated 03.11.2009 making up the deficiencies on the face of which Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant has given a receipt of 54 pages. The entire original file dealing with the application of Sh. Narinder Pal for removing high tension wire from his land, in respect of which the RTI application dated 18.04.2009 has been filed by Sh. Rajneesh Madhok is being carried by the PIO. Appellant is permitted to inspect the said file today and to take any additional papers copies of which are required by him (in addition to photo copies of this file already supplied to him).
2. After going through the RTI application point by point, Item no. 3 would be covered once the original file is seen by Sh. Rajneesh Madhok, Appellant. Answers to item no. 9 to 15 do not qualify as ‘information’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, since, they are more in the nature of ‘Jawab Talbi’ and asking for assurance for future action which are not
AC-508-2009 -2-
included in the definition of ‘information. These are more by way of asking the official to indict themselves for their various acts of omission and commission in dealing with the case.
3. Armed with the information he has been able to get with the help of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Appellant should file a separate representation for redressal of his complaints to the Competent Authority in the Executive. Since, information has been exchanged by both parties today, the matter is adjourned for consideration.
Adjourned to 16.12.2009.
Sd-
(Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj)
State Information Commissioner
04.11. 2009
(LS)
