Plot resumed by Improvement Trust in 2005/ Cancelelled resum
Rajneesh Madhok
(Querist) 17 December 2009
This query is : Resolved
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
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 December 2009
madhok ji!! You have put your case very preciously and effectively. I appreciate you.
Rajneesh Madhok
(Querist) 17 December 2009
Thank you Makkad,
If yourgoodslef have approved my arguments then I am quite sure that I am on a right track. Thanks for your suggestions and guidance.
Rajneesh madhok
