Jump to content
sidmis

RTI: Security cover info denied

Recommended Posts

RTI: Security cover info denied

 

AS Reported in http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com 13 Jun 2008,

 

CHANDIGARH: The concern for "security" and utilization of public money

forced a Panchkula resident to move an application under the Right to

Information Act seeking details regarding deployment of Punjab cops on

VIP security duties. He also wanted to know the reasons for providing

security cover to "significant" persons, daily expenditure incurred on

such security and more importantly who was bearing the cost.

 

Shakti Paul Sharma, the appellant, added that he didn't intend to know

the details of security cover given to CM, governor, cabinet

ministers, judges, government buildings, state-owned buildings etc.

Despite this, the authorities concerned replied that as per a

government notification, the RTI Act did not apply to their security

wing. Following this, Sharma's lawyer Sapan Dhir moved second appeal

and chief information commissioner, Punjab, has fixed the case for

July 9.

 

The application raised significant queries regarding the number of

police personnel deputed on security duties and names and designations

of the officers on whose orders the cover was provided. Also, posers

were taken up on the names and status enjoyed by the people to whom

security cover was given. Moreover, the RTI plea also focused on the

reason for providing security and total expenses incurred till date.

 

The experts point out that though under the Article 21 of the

Constitution it was the state's duty to protect its citizens along

with maintaining law and order by providing security cover to a

person, who is having threat to his life, however, it could not be

claimed to flaunt it as a status symbol. The threat to life should be

real.

 

Even if the security was provided immediately on demand, authorities

are entitled to inquire into the correctness of facts stated by the

person seeking security cover. The aim to file this application was

that on public money is being spent on the such security covers

provided by the state government," said Dhir.

 

RTI: Security cover info denied-Chandigarh-Cities-The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish every citizen of our Great Country must me active and vigilant against corruption and should update himself/herself with latest news.

 

I will post the decision/reply after the hearing to be held on 09/07/2008 before the bench of Chief Information Commissioner,Punjab for the information of all members and general public.

 

May God Bless All

 

Shakti Paul Sharma:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Shakti,

 

Good Job.

 

I missed that one of RTIIndia member is involved in this decision.

 

Keep sharing with us. We all benefit from your experience.

 

Sidharth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sidhart,

 

As desired by you I am enclosing the copy of my RTI Application and Ist Appeal.In case any other document/information is required please feel free for that.

 

regards

 

Shakti

 

THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D

 

Saturday, February 09, 2008

 

To

 

Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS)

I.G.P, Headquarters Cum

Public Information officer

Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9,

Chandigarh (U.T)

 

Subject: Information required under section 6 of the RTI Act. 2005

 

Dear Sir,

You are requested to provide the following information point wise under section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.The information required is regarding the Deployment of Police Personal(s) / Police official(s) on security duty(s) / VIP(s) duty(s) / VVIP(s) duty(s) / security reason(s) etc by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc) and or by CRPF,ITBP,BSF,CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General Punjab serving Police official(s) , Judge(s) Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) and/or retired Police official(s), Judge(s) / Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. GovernmentBuilding(s) / State owned building(s) (i.e. Court(s) Bank(s) Airport(s) Railway Station(s) Bus Stand(s) etc. Person(s) related to electronic and / or print media).

 

1. Number of police personnel(s) / officer(s) are deputed for/on security duty(s) / security reason(s)

2. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s) on whose order(s)/ recommendation(s), the security was provided.

3. Name(s) and designation/status of each and every person(s) separately under the security cover along with following details district wise.

· Reason for providing the security in detail(s).

· Is security provided by Punjab Police or by any other Para-military force .

. Is security provided/given to their family(s) also . (Provide detail(s))

· Date on which the security was provided.

· Direction/Order number (s), date & place of Issue.

· Total cost/expenses incurred till date. (I.e. date of receipt of application) year wise. (In case of any increase or decrease than provide year wise detail(s) separately)

. If there are any direction(s) from any Hon'ble Court(s) to provide security please provide complete details (i.e. order number, dated , name of Court)

. Name(s), Belt number(s) and designation(s) of Police personnel(s) who are deputed for/on security duty.

· Daily expenditure incurred for providing security in each and every respect (i.e. food, salary, transportation, housing/staying etc etc).

· Who is bearing the expenses? Is the State Government, Central Government and/or the person(s) themselves? (In detail(s))

· Latest date of meeting, when, where and by whom the need of security was reviewed. (Name(s) of security agency(s)).

· Is the Police department/Security wing still reviewing/assessing the reason(s) / need for providing the security as it was done in the case titled / named /mentioned : Arvind Khanna v. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB) 1999(2) P.L.R. 813 : 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 299.(copy of Judgment as in RCR attached)

4. Is/are the Head(s) or/any other official(s) of any/all Police District(s) of State of Punjab are authorized and/or has/have any discretion(s) to provide security/security cover without any written order(s) from the concerned officer(s) deputed in the Police Headquarters, Sector – 9, Chandigarh and / or from any Court of Law.

 

I am enclosing an Indian Postal Order no 66E 536873 for Rupees Ten only as required under Right to Information Act 2005.

 

You are again requested to inform/provide/supply the above said information at the earliest. I am ready to deposit the requisite fee, if any, after receiving the written advice/instructions from your end.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of K.P.Sharma

F-I, Block No.31, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple

Village & Post office Bhainsa Tibba

Tehsil & District – Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile: 9316134709, 9216734709, E-mail: .......................

 

 

Copy of Judgement as mentioned in 'Annexure -I'

 

Arvind Khanna v. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB)

1999(2) P.L.R. 813 : 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 299

 

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (DB)

Before :- V.K. Bali and B. Rai, JJ.

Civil Writ Petition No. 16079 of 1998. D/d. 11.1.1999.

 

11.1. 1999

Arvind Khanna - Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab - Respondents For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arun Palli, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- Mr. H.S. Mattewal, AG, Punjab and Mr. R.S. Rai, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Constitution of India, Article 21 - Security cover - Though it is duty of the State of protect a citizen and maintain law and order by even providing security cover to a person having threat to his life, the security cannot be claimed as a matter of right out of fashion of the day to maintain a status symbol - There must be a real threat to his life - Even if the security was provided immediately on demand, but, the authorities are entitled to enquire into the correctness of facts stated by the person seeking security cover - If the facts and reasons for which security was sought and got are found wrong and fake, order of withdrawal of security covery cannot be termed wrong and arbitrary.

[Paras 1 and 6]

 

JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. This guarantee given to a citizen of this country as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does include the State to protect its citizens from known and genuine threats from those who are out to eliminate a citizen of this country by maintaining law and order. However, is it for the citizen to perceive the dimensions of threat extended to him and accordingly demand as a matter of right protection from the State by providing him a security cover or that such a matter is to be determined by the State, is the question that has been mooted in this petition filed by Shri Arvind Khanna who seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order dated 7.10.1998 (Annexure P-2) whereby the security cover provided to him has been withdrawn. Necessarily embedded in the question as framed above is further the question as to whether threat to life perceived by the petitioner is real or that the same is merely a flight of his imagination and demand, thus, made is more in fashion of day to have security cover as a matter of status symbol. Before, however, the questions posed above are determined, it shall be useful to give in brevity facts culminating into filing of the present petition.

2. The petitioner clams to be a social welfare activist and with a view to do something concrete for public good, he is said to have established a charitable trust under the name and style of Khanna Foundations. The Trust is said to be registered with Government of India and its income is exempted from the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Trust was created to feed poor students and start student homes and hostels, to help and assist poor and deserving people in all possible ways as also to make donations to other public charitable foundations/institutions recognised under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner further claims that because of public image and growing popularity over the years, he was approached by ruling political party in the State of Punjab and was persuaded to join Akali Dal (B). For his strong ideas vis-a-vis public cause, his rapidly growing image in the public and also being affluent even much before joining the Youth Akali Dal (B) as its General Secretary, he has been getting serious threats to life and liberty through telephone calls and numerous letters. The matter regarding his personal security was considered by a Committee constituted by the Department of Hone. The Committee having examined the matter was unanimous in its opinion that the petitioner was required to be provided with a security cover and resultantly vide order dated 11.9.1998 the Addl. Director General of Police Security, provided security cover to him. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was primarily concerned with the public good rather than any personal achievements. On joining Akali Dal Youth, he had an occasion to experience approach, policies and functioning of the party and his expectations were shattered when he found that issues for which Akalis made sacrifices were altogether forgotten and ignored when they came to power. All these factors collectively made the petitioner to leave Youth Akali Dal (B) on 21.9.1998. The decision of the petitioner to leave Youth Akali Dal (B) became an issue in the party as the matter and views expressed by him were published in number of newspapers and so much so as a consequence of the petitioner's decision, Youth Akali Dal (B) stood disbanded. In the wake of repercussions arising from the petitioner's decision, the Government purely out of political vendetta and to show its resentment got an order passed from the Addl. D.G.P. Security, Punjab withdrawing security of the petitioner.

3. Inasmuch as no reasons were at all given while passing impugned order Annexure P-2, while withdrawing the security earlier provided to the petitioner and in view of the averments made in the petition the Court issued notice to the respondents. Pursuant to the said notice the respondents have entered defence and seriously opposed the cause of the petitioner. Reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Shri S.S. Virk, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Security, respondents No. 2. It has inter alia been pleaded therein that security wing is concerned with threat perception of the individuals and not with the political activities. The assertion of the petitioner that the Committee had decided to provide security cover to him has been denied. It is denied that Committee had ever held a meeting and selected the petitioner for providing him with the security. In fact petitioner had submitted an application requesting for security due to his activities and movements in Punjab due to which he was provided 1 Head constable and 4 Constables by ADGP Security personally. The case had not been put up before the Committee which decides about categories of different protectees. The allegations of the petitioner that security has been withdrawn since he had left the Akali Dal (B) has also been denied. It has further been mentioned that the security to the petitioner was withdrawn as he was found to be staying in Delhi whereas the security was provided to him at his Chandigarh address. He shifted security to Delhi and started misusing it. It has then been pleaded that the petitioner had obtained security by misrepresenting the facts. While demanding security the projected that he was a resident of Chandigarh House No. 313, Sector 9D and there was a serious security threat to him. In an earlier letter he had conveyed his intention to start big industrial ventures in Punjab like establishment of sugar mill, a brewery in district Ropar, development of 2500 acres of land which he had already purchased on the outskirts of Chandigarh where he was planning to start developing in phases starting at the end of the year 1996. After providing security, normal procedure is that security provided to the protectee is checked by deputing officer to verify whether the security provided is actually being used for the security purposes only. In the present case Sub Inspector Sucha Singh had gone for routine checking of the security and after visiting the residential address given by the petitioner, it was found that there was no security personnel and the duty at the gate was being performed by some private agency. A photocopy of the report submitted by Sub Inspector Sucha Singh has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. On the report of the Sub Inspector office deputed Sh. Mohd. Mustafa, IPS, D.I.G. of Police to know the whereabouts of the security personnel deployed with the petitioner. In his report Shri Mustafa informed that the entire security of the petitioner was based in Delhi. The petitioner's business as well as area of activity were also at Delhi and that he has also manipulated extra man power by personally contacting various police officers in an unauthorised manner. The report aforesaid has been annexed with the written statesmen as Annexure R/3. It has been averred that the petitioner had sought security, for industrial projects but no project of his had matured. It is in the wake of facts and circumstances referred to above that the case of the respondents is that the security earlier provided to the petitioner was withdrawn. Petitioner has filed replication denying assertions made by respondent No. 2 in the written statement. Respondents have also placed on record office order dated 4.12.1998 written by Addl. Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab which reads as follows :-

 

 

  • "This is with reference to your office Memo No. 16212/DDSB-III dated 28.10.1998 on the subject noted above

 

 

  • According to records available in CT Cell, Punjab, there are not inputs suggesting any threat to Sh. Arvind Khanna from any terrorist/militant organisation of Punjab."

4. Respondents also brought on record additional affidavit of Shri S.S. Virk, Inspector General of Police, Security wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had made a request to the Additional Director General of Police to provide security on the ground that he was setting up industrial plants in Punjab which would involve huge amounts of money and hence he was apprehending threats. It was on the basis of the said request that the petitioner was given security as mentioned above. Petitioner again requested the Additional Director General of Police for enhancement of security on the basis of which on 6.6.1997 order were passed by the Addl. A.G.P. for providing guard of 1-4 to the petitioner instead of PSOs. The petitioner had, thus, demanded security on two grounds, namely, that he had threats to his life and secondly that he is going to set up big industrial units in Punjab which would involve huge amount/investment. Keeping in view the reasons, the Intelligence Wing of the State was asked to assess the threat perception of the petitioner. The State Wing of State has accordingly submitted a report conveying the fact that at present there is no threat of any kind to the petitioner. In so far as second reason of setting up of industrial units in Punjab is concerned, the comments of Director of Industries, Punjab were called for. In reply he has intimated to the office that no such projects have been undertaken by the petitioner in Punjab. It has then been mentioned that, in fact, petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by saying that he was provided security on 11.9.1998 whereas actual position is that letter dated 11.9.1998 is only reiterating the order dated 6.6.1997 on which date the petitioner was granted security.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance going through the records, we are of the view that no case for continuing demand for security cover has been made out by the petitioner. Naturally at a time when the petitioner made a request for his security cover, the facts on which such a prayer was made could not be verified immediately and it appears to this Court that since some time was necessarily involved by which facts mentioned by the petitioner could be verified, order providing him security was immediately passed. On verification of facts on which security cover was demanded by the petitioner respondent came to know that not only that petitioner has no threat to his life from any militant outfit/organisation but he had never undertaken to set up industrial units for which too he had demanded security. So much so that the security already provided to him was being misused at Delhi. The information received by the State as mentioned above, is authenticated by reports of various officers mention of whom has been given while narrating the pleadings made in the written statement.

6. In wake of facts and circumstances of this case as have been fully detailed above, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is demanding security cover more out of fashion of day to maintain a status symbol and not for he reason that he might be getting real threats to his life. Although, therefore, it may be the duty of the State to protect a citizen and maintain law and order, the petitioner cannot ask for security cover as a matter of right and that too in the wake of facts and circumstances as have been fully detailed above. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same.

Petition dismissed.

 

 

 

THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D

 

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

 

To

 

Sh.H.R.Chadha (IPS)

Appellate Authority under RTI Act

Cum

A.D.G.P/Adminstration,

Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9,

Chandigarh (U.T)

 

Subject: Appeal under RTI-2005 for providing Information required under section 6 of the RTI Act. 2005 regarding the Deployment of Police Personal(s) / Police official(s) on security duty(s) / VIP(s) duty(s) / VVIP(s) duty(s) / security reason(s) etc by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc) and or by CRPF,ITBP,BSF,CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General Punjab serving Police official(s) , Judge(s) Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) and/or retired Police official(s), Judge(s) / Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. GovernmentBuilding(s) / State owned building(s) (i.e. Court(s) Bank(s) Airport(s) Railway Station(s) Bus Stand(s) etc. Person(s) related to electronic and / or print media).

Dear Sir,

 

I have applied/requested/send an application under RTI Act, 2005 to / with Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS) I.G.P, Headquarters Cum Public Information Officer, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh , through speed post no. EH040924539IN on 09th February 2008.Copy of the same, copy of the speed post receipt & copy of counterfoil of IPO along with enclosure is annexed as 'Annexure – I'

But the same and/or any kind of information have not been supplied to the applicant till date (i.e. 18/03/2008).

You are requested to supply or direct the concerned Public Information Officer to provide the required information in question as per rules / under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of K.P.Sharma

F-I, Block No.31, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple

Village & Post office Bhainsa Tibba

Tehsil & District – Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile: 9316134709, 9216734709, E-mail: ....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shakti,

 

Congratulations ! Thats a good effort.

 

Can I request you to please upload your RTI Application, Reply from PIO, First Appeal, Reply to First Appeal in the following section:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/directory/

 

This is a new user friendly section on RTI India - Complete Online Community Portal for Right to Information and members can then view the complete picture as well as download the documents if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Sidhart,

 

As desired by you I am enclosing the copy of my RTI Application and Ist Appeal.In case any other document/information is required please feel free for that.

 

regards

 

Shakti

 

THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D

 

Saturday, February 09, 2008

 

To

 

Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS)

I.G.P, Headquarters Cum

Public Information officer

Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9,

Chandigarh (U.T)

 

Subject: Information required under section 6 of the RTI Act. 2005

 

Dear Sir,

You are requested to provide the following information point wise under section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.The information required is regarding the Deployment of Police Personal(s) / Police official(s) on security duty(s) / VIP(s) duty(s) / VVIP(s) duty(s) / security reason(s) etc by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc) and or by CRPF,ITBP,BSF,CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General Punjab serving Police official(s) , Judge(s) Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) and/or retired Police official(s), Judge(s) / Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. GovernmentBuilding(s) / State owned building(s) (i.e. Court(s) Bank(s) Airport(s) Railway Station(s) Bus Stand(s) etc. Person(s) related to electronic and / or print media).

 

1. Number of police personnel(s) / officer(s) are deputed for/on security duty(s) / security reason(s)

2. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s) on whose order(s)/ recommendation(s), the security was provided.

3. Name(s) and designation/status of each and every person(s) separately under the security cover along with following details district wise.

· Reason for providing the security in detail(s).

· Is security provided by Punjab Police or by any other Para-military force .

. Is security provided/given to their family(s) also . (Provide detail(s))

· Date on which the security was provided.

· Direction/Order number (s), date & place of Issue.

· Total cost/expenses incurred till date. (I.e. date of receipt of application) year wise. (In case of any increase or decrease than provide year wise detail(s) separately)

. If there are any direction(s) from any Hon'ble Court(s) to provide security please provide complete details (i.e. order number, dated , name of Court)

. Name(s), Belt number(s) and designation(s) of Police personnel(s) who are deputed for/on security duty.

· Daily expenditure incurred for providing security in each and every respect (i.e. food, salary, transportation, housing/staying etc etc).

· Who is bearing the expenses? Is the State Government, Central Government and/or the person(s) themselves? (In detail(s))

· Latest date of meeting, when, where and by whom the need of security was reviewed. (Name(s) of security agency(s)).

· Is the Police department/Security wing still reviewing/assessing the reason(s) / need for providing the security as it was done in the case titled / named /mentioned : Arvind Khanna v. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB) 1999(2) P.L.R. 813 : 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 299.(copy of Judgment as in RCR attached)

4. Is/are the Head(s) or/any other official(s) of any/all Police District(s) of State of Punjab are authorized and/or has/have any discretion(s) to provide security/security cover without any written order(s) from the concerned officer(s) deputed in the Police Headquarters, Sector – 9, Chandigarh and / or from any Court of Law.

 

I am enclosing an Indian Postal Order no 66E 536873 for Rupees Ten only as required under Right to Information Act 2005.

 

You are again requested to inform/provide/supply the above said information at the earliest. I am ready to deposit the requisite fee, if any, after receiving the written advice/instructions from your end.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of K.P.Sharma

F-I, Block No.31, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple

Village & Post office Bhainsa Tibba

Tehsil & District – Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile: 9316134709, 9216734709, E-mail: ..................

 

Copy of Judgement as mentioned in 'Annexure -I'

 

Arvind Khanna v. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB)

1999(2) P.L.R. 813 : 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 299

 

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (DB)

Before :- V.K. Bali and B. Rai, JJ.

Civil Writ Petition No. 16079 of 1998. D/d. 11.1.1999.

 

11.1. 1999

Arvind Khanna - Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab - Respondents For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arun Palli, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- Mr. H.S. Mattewal, AG, Punjab and Mr. R.S. Rai, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Constitution of India, Article 21 - Security cover - Though it is duty of the State of protect a citizen and maintain law and order by even providing security cover to a person having threat to his life, the security cannot be claimed as a matter of right out of fashion of the day to maintain a status symbol - There must be a real threat to his life - Even if the security was provided immediately on demand, but, the authorities are entitled to enquire into the correctness of facts stated by the person seeking security cover - If the facts and reasons for which security was sought and got are found wrong and fake, order of withdrawal of security covery cannot be termed wrong and arbitrary.

[Paras 1 and 6]

 

JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. This guarantee given to a citizen of this country as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does include the State to protect its citizens from known and genuine threats from those who are out to eliminate a citizen of this country by maintaining law and order. However, is it for the citizen to perceive the dimensions of threat extended to him and accordingly demand as a matter of right protection from the State by providing him a security cover or that such a matter is to be determined by the State, is the question that has been mooted in this petition filed by Shri Arvind Khanna who seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order dated 7.10.1998 (Annexure P-2) whereby the security cover provided to him has been withdrawn. Necessarily embedded in the question as framed above is further the question as to whether threat to life perceived by the petitioner is real or that the same is merely a flight of his imagination and demand, thus, made is more in fashion of day to have security cover as a matter of status symbol. Before, however, the questions posed above are determined, it shall be useful to give in brevity facts culminating into filing of the present petition.

2. The petitioner clams to be a social welfare activist and with a view to do something concrete for public good, he is said to have established a charitable trust under the name and style of Khanna Foundations. The Trust is said to be registered with Government of India and its income is exempted from the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Trust was created to feed poor students and start student homes and hostels, to help and assist poor and deserving people in all possible ways as also to make donations to other public charitable foundations/institutions recognised under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner further claims that because of public image and growing popularity over the years, he was approached by ruling political party in the State of Punjab and was persuaded to join Akali Dal (B). For his strong ideas vis-a-vis public cause, his rapidly growing image in the public and also being affluent even much before joining the Youth Akali Dal (B) as its General Secretary, he has been getting serious threats to life and liberty through telephone calls and numerous letters. The matter regarding his personal security was considered by a Committee constituted by the Department of Hone. The Committee having examined the matter was unanimous in its opinion that the petitioner was required to be provided with a security cover and resultantly vide order dated 11.9.1998 the Addl. Director General of Police Security, provided security cover to him. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was primarily concerned with the public good rather than any personal achievements. On joining Akali Dal Youth, he had an occasion to experience approach, policies and functioning of the party and his expectations were shattered when he found that issues for which Akalis made sacrifices were altogether forgotten and ignored when they came to power. All these factors collectively made the petitioner to leave Youth Akali Dal (B) on 21.9.1998. The decision of the petitioner to leave Youth Akali Dal (B) became an issue in the party as the matter and views expressed by him were published in number of newspapers and so much so as a consequence of the petitioner's decision, Youth Akali Dal (B) stood disbanded. In the wake of repercussions arising from the petitioner's decision, the Government purely out of political vendetta and to show its resentment got an order passed from the Addl. D.G.P. Security, Punjab withdrawing security of the petitioner.

3. Inasmuch as no reasons were at all given while passing impugned order Annexure P-2, while withdrawing the security earlier provided to the petitioner and in view of the averments made in the petition the Court issued notice to the respondents. Pursuant to the said notice the respondents have entered defence and seriously opposed the cause of the petitioner. Reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Shri S.S. Virk, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Security, respondents No. 2. It has inter alia been pleaded therein that security wing is concerned with threat perception of the individuals and not with the political activities. The assertion of the petitioner that the Committee had decided to provide security cover to him has been denied. It is denied that Committee had ever held a meeting and selected the petitioner for providing him with the security. In fact petitioner had submitted an application requesting for security due to his activities and movements in Punjab due to which he was provided 1 Head constable and 4 Constables by ADGP Security personally. The case had not been put up before the Committee which decides about categories of different protectees. The allegations of the petitioner that security has been withdrawn since he had left the Akali Dal (B) has also been denied. It has further been mentioned that the security to the petitioner was withdrawn as he was found to be staying in Delhi whereas the security was provided to him at his Chandigarh address. He shifted security to Delhi and started misusing it. It has then been pleaded that the petitioner had obtained security by misrepresenting the facts. While demanding security the projected that he was a resident of Chandigarh House No. 313, Sector 9D and there was a serious security threat to him. In an earlier letter he had conveyed his intention to start big industrial ventures in Punjab like establishment of sugar mill, a brewery in district Ropar, development of 2500 acres of land which he had already purchased on the outskirts of Chandigarh where he was planning to start developing in phases starting at the end of the year 1996. After providing security, normal procedure is that security provided to the protectee is checked by deputing officer to verify whether the security provided is actually being used for the security purposes only. In the present case Sub Inspector Sucha Singh had gone for routine checking of the security and after visiting the residential address given by the petitioner, it was found that there was no security personnel and the duty at the gate was being performed by some private agency. A photocopy of the report submitted by Sub Inspector Sucha Singh has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. On the report of the Sub Inspector office deputed Sh. Mohd. Mustafa, IPS, D.I.G. of Police to know the whereabouts of the security personnel deployed with the petitioner. In his report Shri Mustafa informed that the entire security of the petitioner was based in Delhi. The petitioner's business as well as area of activity were also at Delhi and that he has also manipulated extra man power by personally contacting various police officers in an unauthorised manner. The report aforesaid has been annexed with the written statesmen as Annexure R/3. It has been averred that the petitioner had sought security, for industrial projects but no project of his had matured. It is in the wake of facts and circumstances referred to above that the case of the respondents is that the security earlier provided to the petitioner was withdrawn. Petitioner has filed replication denying assertions made by respondent No. 2 in the written statement. Respondents have also placed on record office order dated 4.12.1998 written by Addl. Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab which reads as follows :-

 

 

  • "This is with reference to your office Memo No. 16212/DDSB-III dated 28.10.1998 on the subject noted above

 

 

  • According to records available in CT Cell, Punjab, there are not inputs suggesting any threat to Sh. Arvind Khanna from any terrorist/militant organisation of Punjab."

4. Respondents also brought on record additional affidavit of Shri S.S. Virk, Inspector General of Police, Security wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner had made a request to the Additional Director General of Police to provide security on the ground that he was setting up industrial plants in Punjab which would involve huge amounts of money and hence he was apprehending threats. It was on the basis of the said request that the petitioner was given security as mentioned above. Petitioner again requested the Additional Director General of Police for enhancement of security on the basis of which on 6.6.1997 order were passed by the Addl. A.G.P. for providing guard of 1-4 to the petitioner instead of PSOs. The petitioner had, thus, demanded security on two grounds, namely, that he had threats to his life and secondly that he is going to set up big industrial units in Punjab which would involve huge amount/investment. Keeping in view the reasons, the Intelligence Wing of the State was asked to assess the threat perception of the petitioner. The State Wing of State has accordingly submitted a report conveying the fact that at present there is no threat of any kind to the petitioner. In so far as second reason of setting up of industrial units in Punjab is concerned, the comments of Director of Industries, Punjab were called for. In reply he has intimated to the office that no such projects have been undertaken by the petitioner in Punjab. It has then been mentioned that, in fact, petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by saying that he was provided security on 11.9.1998 whereas actual position is that letter dated 11.9.1998 is only reiterating the order dated 6.6.1997 on which date the petitioner was granted security.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance going through the records, we are of the view that no case for continuing demand for security cover has been made out by the petitioner. Naturally at a time when the petitioner made a request for his security cover, the facts on which such a prayer was made could not be verified immediately and it appears to this Court that since some time was necessarily involved by which facts mentioned by the petitioner could be verified, order providing him security was immediately passed. On verification of facts on which security cover was demanded by the petitioner respondent came to know that not only that petitioner has no threat to his life from any militant outfit/organisation but he had never undertaken to set up industrial units for which too he had demanded security. So much so that the security already provided to him was being misused at Delhi. The information received by the State as mentioned above, is authenticated by reports of various officers mention of whom has been given while narrating the pleadings made in the written statement.

6. In wake of facts and circumstances of this case as have been fully detailed above, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is demanding security cover more out of fashion of day to maintain a status symbol and not for he reason that he might be getting real threats to his life. Although, therefore, it may be the duty of the State to protect a citizen and maintain law and order, the petitioner cannot ask for security cover as a matter of right and that too in the wake of facts and circumstances as have been fully detailed above. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same.

Petition dismissed.

 

 

 

THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D

 

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

 

To

 

Sh.H.R.Chadha (IPS)

Appellate Authority under RTI Act

Cum

A.D.G.P/Adminstration,

Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9,

Chandigarh (U.T)

 

Subject: Appeal under RTI-2005 for providing Information required under section 6 of the RTI Act. 2005 regarding the Deployment of Police Personal(s) / Police official(s) on security duty(s) / VIP(s) duty(s) / VVIP(s) duty(s) / security reason(s) etc by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc) and or by CRPF,ITBP,BSF,CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General Punjab serving Police official(s) , Judge(s) Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) and/or retired Police official(s), Judge(s) / Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. GovernmentBuilding(s) / State owned building(s) (i.e. Court(s) Bank(s) Airport(s) Railway Station(s) Bus Stand(s) etc. Person(s) related to electronic and / or print media).

Dear Sir,

 

I have applied/requested/send an application under RTI Act, 2005 to / with Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS) I.G.P, Headquarters Cum Public Information Officer, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh , through speed post no. EH040924539IN on 09th February 2008.Copy of the same, copy of the speed post receipt & copy of counterfoil of IPO along with enclosure is annexed as 'Annexure – I'

But the same and/or any kind of information have not been supplied to the applicant till date (i.e. 18/03/2008).

You are requested to supply or direct the concerned Public Information Officer to provide the required information in question as per rules / under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of K.P.Sharma

F-I, Block No.31, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple

Village & Post office Bhainsa Tibba

Tehsil & District – Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile: 9316134709, 9216734709, E-mail: ...................

BY/THROUGH HAND/SPEED POST/E-MAIL

 

Monday, April 21, 2008

 

To

 

Shri Rajan Kashyap

Chief Information Commissioner,Punjab

S.C.O.84-85,2nd and 3rd floor,

Sector-17-C,Chandigarh.

 

Subject: IInd Appeal under RTI Act-2005 for directing the concerned to provide Information required under section 6 of the RTI Act. 2005 regarding the Deployment of Police Personal(s) / Police official(s) on security duty(s) / VIP(s) duty(s) / VVIP(s) duty(s) / security reason(s) etc by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc) and or by CRPF,ITBP,BSF,CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General Punjab serving Police official(s) , Judge(s) Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) and/or retired Police official(s), Judge(s) / Bureaucrat(s), Military / Para-Military official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. GovernmentBuilding(s) / State owned building(s) (i.e. Court(s) Bank(s) Airport(s) Railway Station(s) Bus Stand(s) etc. Person(s) related to electronic and / or print media).

 

Respected Sir,

 

I have applied/requested/send an application under RTI Act, 2005 to / with Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS) I.G.P, Headquarters Cum Public Information Officer, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh , through speed post no. EH040924539IN on 09th February 2008.Copy of the same is annexed as ‘Annexure – A’

Since no Information/ any kind of intimation/information was supplied/given/intimated/sent/delivered to the applicant till 18/03/2008 i.e. 36 days after the receipt of my R.T.I application.(Date of receipt of my RTI application is 11/02/2008)

So the applicant went for first appeal on 18/03/2008 before Sh.H.R.Chadha(IPS) Appellate Authority under RTI Act Cum A.D.G.P/Administration, Punjab Police Headquarters,Sector-9,Chandigarh through speed post no.EE778414313IN dated 18/03/2008.Copy of the same is annexed as ‘Annexure-B’

The same was delivered on 19/03/2008.Copy of the delivery report of both the application(s)/speed post(s) (RTI Application & First Appeal) as available on the web site Welcome to the Indiapost Web Site is annexed as ‘Annexure-C’

I have also sent the reminder for the same along with the copy(s)/detail(s) of same (First Appeal under RTI Act-2005 & RTI Application dated 09/02/2008) on 23/03/2008 and on 10/04/2008 to Sh.H.R.Chadha(IPS) Appellate Authority under RTI Act-2005 through e-mail on his official e-mail address i.e. ADGPAdmin@punjabcpo.org Copy of the same is annexed as ‘Annexure-D’

But the same and/or any kind of intimation/information have not been supplied / given / provided / delivered / intimated to the applicant till date i.e 21/04/2008.(Total 70 days )

 

You are requested to provide or direct the concerned officer(s)/department(s) to provide the complete/detailed information in question and reason(s) for not providing the same in time as mandatory/required under the provisions of Right to Information Act-2005.In the interest of Justice.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of Sh.Krishan Paul Sharma

F-I, Block no. 31, Village & P.O. Bhainsa Tibba

Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm, Near ShriMataMansaDeviTemple

Tehsil & District Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile:9316134709,9216734709,E-mail: ....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please Note : Complete detail(s) of all the enclosed Annexure(s)‘A to D’ and Detail(s) of indexing of each and every document / copy duly signed by the applicant is enclosed.

 

 

 

 

 

Detail(s) of Annexure(s)

 

 

ANNEXURE

MODE OF SENDING

DATE OF POST/RECEIPT

SUBJECT/DETAILS

Annexure-A

SPEEDPOSTEH040924539IN

09.02.08/11.02.08

RTI Application

Annexure-B

SPEEDPOSTEE778414313IN

18.03.08/19.03.08

Appeal

Annexure-C

-------------------------------

----------------------

Speed Post(s) Delivery Report

Annexure-D

E-MAIL

23.03.08 & 10.04.08/No Info.

Reminder (s) to Appellate Authority

 

 

 

 

Indexing of each and every document / copy duly signed by the applicant .

 

 

Page No.

Detail(s)/Matter/Subject

1.

RTI Application

2.

RTI Application

3.

RTI Application

4.

Annexure-I (RTI Application)

5.

Annexure-I (RTI Application)

6.

Annexure-I (RTI Application)

7.

Annexure-I (RTI Application)

8.

Appeal under RTI Act-2005

9.

Speed Post(s) Delivery Report

10.

Reminder E-Mail(s)

11.

Annexure-I (Reminder E-Mail(s))

12.

Annexure-I (Reminder E-Mail(s))

13.

Annexure-I (Reminder E-Mail(s))

14.

Annexure-I (Reminder E-Mail(s))

15.

Annexure-I (Reminder E-Mail(s))

 

clip_image002.jpg

 

 

 

 

BY/THROUGH HAND/SPEED POST/E-MAIL

 

Thursday, June 05, 2008

 

To

 

Shri Rajan Kashyap

Chief Information Commissioner,Punjab

S.C.O.84-85,2nd and 3rd floor,

Sector-17-C,Chandigarh.

 

Subject: In conituation to my IInd Appeal No.190/2008 under RTI Act-2005 fixed for/date of hearing 11/06/2008

 

 

Respected Sir,

 

I have submitted/filed a IInd appeal with the office of your goodself on 21/04/2008 vide dairy no/receipt no. 5569. Subsequently on 05/05/2008 I received a registered post containing 'NOTICE OF HEARING' / AC No.190 of 2008 bearing No. PSIC/Legal/2008/4402 dated 02/05/2008 from Deputy Registrar, State Information Commission, Punjab S.C.O.No.84-85,Sector-!7-C,Chandigarh. Copy of same is annexed as 'Annexure-I'

 

On 23/05/2008 I received a letter through ordinary post sent by the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Security-cum-APIO, Punjab, Chandigarh. Vide Memo No.10439/DDSB-IV dated, Chandigarh 13/05/2008.Copy of the same is annexed as 'Annexure-II'.

The brief particulars of the above stated letter/information/intimation are given below:-

 

1.That the applicant has received the first Letter /

Information / intimation after more than 100 days.

 

2.That said letter/information/intimation is not signed by

the designated APIO as it is mandatory under RTI Act-2005.

 

3.That as per the letter/information/intimation it is

Informed that "As per the Government Notification No.2/27/05-IAR/191 dated 23/02/2006 that the said Act shall not apply on Security Wing." But the copy of the same i.e. notification is not enclosed with the reply the applicant got the same from the library of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh with the help of/ after engaging the Advocate.

 

4.That the above stated letter/information/intimation is sent after the receipt of Notice of Hearing/AC No.190 of 2008.

 

CLAIM(S) IN APPEAL

 

1.To provide requisite information/as requested in my application

dated 09/02/2008 under RTI Act-2005.

 

2.To fix the responsibility of the concerned PIO & Appellate Authority under Section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act-2005 etc for not providing the information in stipulated period/not deciding the appeal in stipulated period.

 

3. To direct the concerned officer(s) to suitably compensate the

applicant for the harassment/delay/ and direct them to deposit the same with Police Welfare Fund, Punjab or With Red Cross Punjab .

 

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

 

1.The basic purpose/motive of the RTI Act-2005

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 No. 22 of 2005

[15th June, 2005.]

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.

WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

In case the requisite information is not provided then the basic purpose of RTI Act-2005 will be defeated.

1.That In the said Notification of Punjab Government it is clear that this Notification is not retrospective in operation and hence the same is deemed to be prospective in effect. Even otherwise the issuance of such notification during pendency of the proceedings before the authorities under the RTI Act is meaningless and the application for seeking information is to be decided as per rights existing on the date of inception of the application for information.

2.That almost similar matter came before Assam Information Commission in following case;

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Case No. KP(M)109/2007

Dated 11-01-2008

 

NameoftheComplainant:

ShriToponLalBaruah,IAS(Retd)12,Byelane,R.G.BaruahRoadGuwahati�781024.

 

NameofthePublicAuthority/SPIO:

DirectorGeneralofPolice,Assam, (detail of case in file attached)

3.Similar matter also came for hearing before CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER-GUJRAT IN case titled;

Appeal No. 336/06-07 and 337/06-07.

Appeal under Section – 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005

The 4th day of July, 2007.

Appellants:

1. Shri Suresh Chandra Gamanlal Chokshi (Appeal No. 336/06-07)

Moti Cinema Begumpura Surat.

2. Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi (Appeal No. 337/06-07).

Moti Cinema Begumpura Surat.

Respondents :

1. The Public Information Officer and Secretary

Home Department Sachivalaya, Block No. 2 Gandhinagar.

2. The Appellate Authority and Principal Secretary

Home Department Block No. 2 Gandhinagar.

 

* The right to seek information of the appellant cannot be snatched by amendment by issue of notification as the operation of the notification is always prospective unless it is specifically stated to be retrospective

 

For this reference may be made to 2007 (2) R.C.R.(Rent) 222

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

(LB)

Before :- G.S. Singhvi, CJ, Dr. G. Yethirajulu, Ramesh Ranganathan, G.Bhavani Prasad and C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, JJ.

S.A. Nos. 1475 and 1449 of 2005 and Batch. D/d. 30.4.2007

30.4. 2007

Ramvilas Bajaj and others - Appellants

Versus

Ashok Kumar and others - Respondents

 

* The test for any notification to be having prospective or retrospective effect also came up for hearing before Hon’ble Supreme Court in following case and it was held that notification is always prospective unless it is specifically made to have retrospective effect.

 

Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India, (SC)

2007 (3) S.C.T. 681 : 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 2599

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.

Civil Writ Petition No. 4 of 205. D/d. 15.5.2007

15.5. 2007

Udai Singh Dagar & Ors. - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

WITH Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11880 of 2006).

Thus in the interest of justice, law and equity, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the requisite information sought may be directed to be supplied in the stipulated time frame in order to save the valuable hard earned/collected money of the citizens of India/Government.

 

Thanking you,

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Shakti Paul Sharma

Son of K.P.Sharma

F-I, Block No.31, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm

Near ShriMataMansaDeviTemple

Village & Post office Bhainsa Tibba

Tehsil & District – Panchkula-134109 (Haryana)

Mobile: 9316134709, 9216734709, E-mail: [...................

 

 

C.C

1.Sh.H.R.Chadha (IPS),Appellate Authority under RTI Act

Cum,A.D.G.P/Adminstration,Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9, Chandigarh (U.T) through e-mail.

2.Sh.Suresh Arora (IPS),I.G.P, Headquarters Cum

Public Information officer, Punjab Police Headquarters

Sector – 9, Chandigarh (U.T) through e-mail

 

 

 

 

Submitted on 11/06/2008

 

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

IN APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2008

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

 

SHAKTI PAUL SHARMA

…APPELLANT/APPLICANT

AND

I.G.P., HEADQUARTERS CUM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PUNJAB POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

…RESPONDENTS

 

APPEAL UNDER THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION ACT, 2005.

 

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT IN ADDITION TO ORAL SUBMISSIONS DURING HEARING.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :-

1.That the appellant/applicant received a notice from this Hon’ble Commission for hearing on 11.06.2008 i.e. today and therefore, the appellant/applicant is submitting written submissions on his behalf in addition to his oral submissions during the hearing, which may kindly be allowed to be taken on record.

2.That the brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are described in the succeeding paragraphs.

3.That on 09.02.2008, the appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as the Act) before Mr. Suresh Arora, I.G.P., Headquarters-cum-Public Information Officer, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector 9, Chandigarh seeking certain information, which is as follows :-

“…The information required is regarding the deployment of Police Personal(s)/Police Official(s) on security Duty(s)/VIP(s) duty(s)/VVIP(s) duty(s)/ security reason(s) etc. by Punjab Police (including any wing of Punjab Police i.e. RPF etc. and/or by CRPF, ITBP, BSF, CISF (Except Present Chief Minister, Present Governor, Present Cabinet Minister(s), Present State Minister(s), Sitting Member(s) of Parliament, Advocate General, Punjab serving Police Official(s), Judge(s), Bureaucrat(s), Military/Para Military Official(s) and/or retired Police Official(s), Judge(s), Bureaucrat(s), Military/Para Military Official(s) who served in any of the State(s) of our Great Nation in the days of terrorism. Government Building(s)/State owned Building(s) (i.e. Court(s), Bank(s), Airport(s), Railway Station(s), Bus Stand(s), etc. Person(s) related to electronic and/or print media).

1.Number of police personnel(s)/officer(s) are deputed for/on security duty(s)/security reason(s).

2.Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s) on whose order(s)/recommendation(s), the security was provided.

3.Name(s) and designation/status of each and every person(s) separately under the security cover along with following details district wise :

-Reason for providing the security in detail(s).

-Is security provided by Punjab Police or by any other Para Military Force.

-Is security provided/given to their family(s) also. (Provide details).

-Date on which the security was provided.

-Direction/order number(s), date and place of issue.

-Total cost/expenses incurred till date (i.e. date of receipt of application) year wise. (in case of any increase or decrease then provide year wise detail(s) separately).

-If there are any direction(s) from any Hon’ble Court(s) to provide security please provide complete details (i.e. order number, dated, name of Court)

-Name(s), Belt number(s) and designation(s) of Police personnel(s) who are deputed for/on security duty.

-Daily expenditure incurred for providing security in each and every respect (i.e. food, salary, transportation, housing/staying etc. etc.).

-Who is bearing the expenses ? Is the State Government, Central Government and/or the person(s) themselves ? (In Details)

-Late date of meeting, when, where and by whom the need of security was reviewed. (Name(s) of security agency(s).

-Is the Police department/security wing still reviewing/assessing the reason(s)/need for providing the security as it was done in the case titled/named/mentioned : Arvind Khanna vs. State of Punjab, (P&H) (DB) 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 299.

4.Is/are the Head(s) or/any other official(s) of any/all Police district(s) of State of Punjab are authorized and/or has/have any discretion(s) to provide security/security cover without any written order(s) from the concerned officer(s) deputed in the Police Headquarters, Sector 9, Chandigarh and/or from any Court of Law….”

4.That upon no response on the above said application dated 09.02.2008 of the applicant/appellant within the time stipulated in the Act, the appellant/applicant on 18.03.2008 preferred first appeal before Sh. H.R. Chadha, (IPS), A.D.G.P., Administration-cum-Appellant Authority under RTI Act, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

5.That when no response had been received by the appellant/applicant, even in the said appeal also within the time stipulated in the Act, the appellant/applicant approached this Hon’ble Commission by way of second appeal on 21.04.2008.

6.That in the present appeal, this Hon’ble Commission issued notice to the appellant/applicant for hearing for today i.e. 11.06.2008.

7.That in the meantime, the applicant/appellant on 23.05.2008 received a vague and baseless letter dated 13.05.2008 from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Security-cum-APIO, Punjab, Chandigarh stating therein only that the Act shall not apply on Security Wing.

8.That upon receipt of the said letter dated 13.05.2008, the appellant/applicant approached this Hon’ble Commission vide his letter dated 05.06.2008, which is also pending for consideration before this Hon’ble Commission.

9.That the impugned action on the part of Sh. Suresh Arora, Public Information Officer, Punjab Police Headquarters, of not supplying the information sought by the appellant/applicant till date and even within the time stipulated in the Act itself and the issuance of the letter dated 13.05.2008 by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Security-cum-APIO, Punjab, Chandigarh, being illegal, arbitrary, vague, violative of the provisions of the Act, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, interalia on the following grounds :-

A.That the basic object of the Act clearly spells out as follows :-

“…An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right of 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.

WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum used of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal…”

The basic object of the Act itself provides that every citizen of the India should have access to information under the control of public authorities and therefore, the non-supplying of the information sought by the appellant/applicant, clearly tantamounts to defeat the basic object of the Act itself.

B.That Section 7 of the Act provides certain time stipulations within which, the information sought by any applicant under the Act has to be supplied or some response has to be made, failing which, the concerned Public Information Officer would be penalized with the certain Penalties provided under Section 20 of the Act. In the present case, it is a proved fact that the information sought by the appellant/applicant has not been supplied by the Public Information Officer within the period stipulated in the Act nor any response has been made by the said Officer to the appellant/applicant on his application seeking information within such stipulated period.

C.That even otherwise also, the Act itself provides that if the concerned Public Information Officer did not supply the information sought within the stipulated period, then thereafter, those information has to be furnished to the applicant free of any charges. This act on the part of the concerned Public Information Officer clearly causes an avoidable expenditure to the Public Authority. Even Section 20 of the Act provides that if the Hon’ble Commission finds such action on the part of the concerned Public Information Officer, it shall recommend disciplinary action against the said Public Information Officer. The present case is completely covered under the said provisions of the Act. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble Gujarat Information Commission in Complaint No. 1670/06-07 has imposed penalty upon the concerned Public Information Officer. A copy of the decision dated 31.08.2007 rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat Information Commission is enclosed herewith for the kind perusal and ready reference of this Hon’ble Commission please.

D.That the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 issued to the appellant/applicant by the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-APIO, Punjab, Chandigarh is totally a vague and baseless. The denial of the information sought to the appellant/applicant by the said letter is not based on any clear and reasonable grounds. It is well settled law that in case the information is to be denied under Section 8 of the Act, then the Information Officer would have to clearly apply his mind, based on records, as to which of the clause or clauses of Section 8 of the Act would apply.

E.That the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 is also vague and baseless in view of the fact that it does not justify the denial of the information sought on the ground that the disclosure of the information would prejudicially affect the security and economic interests of the State Government. It is humbly and respectfully submitted that the information sought by the appellant/applicant would not at all prejudicially affect the security and economic interests of the State Government. Moreover, the appellant/applicant does not request for providing him information as to how many and where the ammunition dump(s) are installed in the State of Punjab and how much security is/are deployed there ? Of course, that information cannot be made public as it effects the security of the State/Nation. In this regard, a similar observation has been made by the Hon’ble Gujarat Information Commission in Appeals Nos. 336 and 337 of 2006-2007 vide its order dated 04.07.2007 directing the Public Information Officer to the appellants therein. A copy of the order dated 04.07.2007 of the Hon’ble Gujarat Information Commission is attached herewith for the kind perusal and ready reference of this Hon’ble Commission please.

F.That the action on the part of the Public Information Officer of non-supplying the information sought by the appellant/applicant and the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh are totally vague and without any basis. The information sought by the appellant/applicant cannot be denied under Section 8 of the Act and it has been many times disclosed by the authorities in reply to various Court cases as well as in press conferences or news items, etc. and as they are already in public domain, therefore, cannot be denied. The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Assam Information Commission in case No. KP (M) 109 of 2007 vide its decision dated 11.01.2008, a copy of which is attached herewith for the kind perusal and ready reference of this Hon’ble Commission please. In this regard, the copies of certain news items and a decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in the case of Arvind Khanna vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 299 are attached herewith also.

G.That moreover, the alleged notification in the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 does not bar the authorities to provide the information to the appellant/applicant prior to the date of the said notification as it has nowhere published in the said notification that it will be applicable with retrospective effect. It is well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as various Hon’ble High Courts that in case it is not clearly spelled out in any notification that it will be given effect retrospectively, then its effect will start only with effect from the date of the notification and not prior to that. In this regard, copies of the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as by an Hon’ble Full Bench of the Andhra Pardesh High Court are attached herewith for kind perusal and ready reference of this Hon’ble Commission also. Therefore, the impugned action on the part of the Public Information Officer in not supplying the information sought is not justified and reasonable.

H.That it is humbly and respectfully submitted here that Section 24 of the Act provides that the Act shall not be applied to certain organizations specified in the Second Schedule. The Punjab Police has not been specified in the Second Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the impugned action on the part of the Public Information Officer for non supplying the information sought by the applicant/appellant is clearly malafide and unreasonable.

I.That it is also humbly and respectfully submitted here that Section 19 of the Act provides that the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Public Information Officer, who denied the request. It is submitted that he has to justify his denial. A bare perusal of the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 clearly proves that the denial on the part of the authorities has not been justified by them.

J.That the impugned letter dated 13.05.2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab is totally a non-speaking and has been issued totally in violation of the principles of Natural Justice. No opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the appellant/applicant before issuing the said letter.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made above, it is humbly and respectfully prayed that the present appeal of the appellant/applicant may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play;

and

It is further prayed that the Public Information Officer may kindly be directed to provide the requisite information as requested by the appellant/applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005;

And

It is further prayed that the concerned Public Information Officer/Appellate Authority may kindly be held responsible/liable under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act for not providing the information sought within the period stipulated in the Act/not responding to the application/appeal of the appellant/applicant within the stipulated period;

And

It is further prayed that the concerned Officer(s) may kindly be directed to suitably compensate the appellant/applicant for the harassment/delay and they may kindly be directed to deposit the same compensation with the Police Welfare Fund, Punjab or with Red Cross, Punjab.

And

It is further prayed that any such other order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant, which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

Submitted by :

(Shakti Paul Sharma)

-Appellant

Place : Chandigarh

Dated : 11.06.2008

Through counsel

(SAPAN DHIR)&(SAMINA DHIR)

ADVOCATES

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT.

(29, SECTOR 5, CHANDIGARH)

(09814431428, 09814631428)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be better if you submit the complete information at the Directory segment rather than at the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Kaushal

 

I have tryed to do the same (to upload my file) on the said directory but it is saying that your data is exceeding the limt of XXX words,please advice how can I tranfer the same or do it yourself my basic motive is to update all the members and other RTI related persons and get their valuable advice/help/directions etc for better presentation of my RTI Application/Appeal

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Brother

greetings i would like to here the reply on the on 09/07/2008

Regards.

Bhupinder.

:)

I will post the decision/reply after the hearing to be held on 09/07/2008 before the bench of Chief Information Commissioner,Punjab for the information of all members and general public.

 

May God Bless All

 

Shakti Paul Sharma:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the requirement of the punjab state. where security cover was used by the powerfull people for there personal status the money paid by the people of punjab by commonman was used to protect these persons.

 

regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please find the post dated Judgement of Chief Information Commissioner,Punjab as available on the web site of Punjab Information Commissioner web site http://www.http://www.infocommpunjab.com offical web site of Punjab Information Commissioner

click orders under section S.18/S.19 then click on date 09 Jul 08 (1) and you will find the post dated Judgement.Actualy the date of hearing was 09.07.2008 and I was told that the Judgement is reserved.I am enclosing the copy(s) of both the orders of the CIC,Punjab.Moreover the case was heard by Sh.Rajan Kashyap CIC & Lt.Gen.P.K.Grover (Retd) SIC,where as it/order is mentioning that the order is passed by CIC Sh.Rajan Kashyap and SIC Sh.P.P.S.Gill .and further order final which is supposed to be passed on 15.09.2008 (as per the web site of SIC,Punjab).Please advice.I and my family might be under threat of life.

 

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

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

Home Page

 

Shri Shakti Paul Sharma,

F-1, Block 31, Vill & PO-Bhainsa Tibba,

Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm,

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple,

Teh.& Distt- Panchkula.. ..Appellant

 

Vs.

 

Public Information Officer,

O/o I.G.P., Headquarters, Punjab.

Sector 9, Chandigarh. …..Respondent

 

AC No. 190 of 2008

ORDER

Present: Shri. Sapan Dhir, Advocate on behalf of Appellant.

Shri. Harbhajan Singh, DSP (Security) on behalf of Respondent.

 

Written arguments were given by the Appellant on the last date of hearing. Respondent gives his response in writing. Copy of this submission is delivered to the Appellant.

2. Judgment reserved. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

 

(Rajan Kashyap)

Chief Information Commissioner

Chandigarh

Dated: 09.07.2008

 

(P.P.S.Gill)

State Information Commissioner

 

 

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

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

Home Page

 

Shri Shakti Paul Sharma,

F-1, Block 31, Vill & PO-Bhainsa Tibba,

Shri Mata Mansa Devi Farm,

Near Shri Mata Mansa Devi Temple,

Teh.& Distt- Panchkula.. …...Appellant

 

Vs.

 

Public Information Officer,

O/o I.G.P., Headquarters, Punjab.

Sector 9, Chandigarh. …..Respondent

 

AC No. 190 of 2008

ORDER

 

Arguments in this case were heard on 09.07.2008 and the judgment was reserved.

2. The information sought by the Appellant in the instant case pertains to the deployment of police personnel on security duty, VIP duty etc. by the Punjab police (including any wing of Punjab police). The grievance of the Appellant is that the information sought by him has not been supplied by the Respondent PIO and the first appeal preferred by the Appellant has also not yielded any positive result.

3. The stand of the Respondent is that it is under no obligation to provide information demanded, in the instant case, inasmuch as the information pertains to the security wing of the Punjab police, which organization has been taken out of the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Punjab Government through the issuance of a Notification dated 23.02.2006, in exercise of the power under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Apart from the submissions made by the Appellant on merits, the Appellant claims that Section 24 has no application to the instant case as Punjab Police does not figure in the list of organizations given in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005.

4. A close reading of Section 24 of the Act shows that the organizations specified in the Second Schedule are those organizations which are established by the Central Government. The reference to the Second Schedule is made in sub-Section (1) of Section 24 which exclusively deals with the non-applicability of the Act to the organizations established by the Central Government. In so far as the organizations

Contd…P/2

-2-

 

established by the State Governments are concerned, it is sub-Section (4) of Section 24 which is the relevant provision for the purpose of exempting the organization/s from the applicability of the RTI Act, 2005. The Second Schedule has no relevance to the issuance of the Notification by the State Government under sub-Section (4) exempting certain organization/s from the applicability of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Appellant that Section 24 does not apply to the instant case is, thus, without merit. Perusal of the notification dated 23.02.2006 shows that certain organizations including the security wing have been taken out of the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. The Notification has been issued by the Government of Punjab in exercise of its power under Section 24 (4). We do not find any legal infirmity in the issuance of the Notification. The Notification, therefore, will have effect and operate as per its content.

5. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed being without merit. We order accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.

 

(Rajan Kashyap)

Chief Information Commissioner

Chandigarh

Dated: 15.09.2008

 

(P.P.S.Gill)

State Information Commissioner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After keeping the Judgments/orders dated 09.07.2008 down/offloaded for 2-3 days from the official web site of CIC,Punjab.

Now the official web site of CIC,Punjab has removed the post dated Judgment from the folder containing Judgments for 09.07.2009 from its web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Shakti

 

this is ramanjeet here , i had too filed a similar RTI and the response i got is the similar .If you can please share with me the details of the final verdict it will help me a lot in deciding my future course of action

 

--Thx

Ramanjeet Singh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Files

  • Blog Entries

  • Similar Content

    • By crusader
      New Delhi, November 9: Former Youth Congress leader M S Bitta has written a letter to the Centre seeking information under the RTI Act as to why his security was withdrawn in 1993, two days before a bomb attack on him.
      The former Punjab minister, who heads the All India Anti-Terrorist Front, has sought the assessment report of the security review committee from the Home Ministry in his case in September 1993. Nine people were killed and several others injured in the bomb attack at Delhi’s Raisina Road.
      “I feel there was some conspiracy behind the sudden issuance of the order of security withdrawal by the Ministry of Home Affairs in my case. ... I feel there had been deliberate attempts to expose me to terrorists,” he said in his letter to the VIP security director in the Ministry.
      In the letter, he has sought whether the Centre’s decision to withdraw security was prompted by some “political pressure” as he “recalled he had faced a deadly attack” in May 1992 in Amritsar.
      He has also sought information on action taken against agencies involved in security arrangements for former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi before his assassination.
    • By maneesh
      Gunraj Singh of Hoshiarpur in Punjab owns more than hundred acres and spends more than eight hours a day in the fields. It's no wonder that he has tasted success early since he is only 33 years old.
       
      Gunraj is also driven by another passion, which is soil and forest conservation.
       
      He showed NDTV team hundreds of acres of forestland that lie barren near Hoshiarpur.
       
      Under the RTI Act, he has asked the Hoshiarpur district forest office for details of forest conversation measures and money spent on aforestation projects.
       
      Money deposit
       
      The details run into 11,900 pages and Gunraj had to spend Rs 24,000 for it.
       
      "The environment and forest doesn't belong to me alone. It belongs to all of us and belongs to general public," he said.
       
      "At least our child should have a bright future and if I have shelved this amount just for the sake of public, and according to me, it is a big amount. But a small part I have shelved, so that I can expose the on-going corruption and we should have some forest left in Punjab," he added.
       
      Gunraj alleges that the DFO wasn't very keen to part with the information. He went to the RTI Commissioner in Chandigarh where he deposited the money.
       
      The commissioner has asked the Hoshiarpur DFO to get all the documents on November 27.
       
      Bulky documents
       
      This is so far the bulkiest information sought under the RTI Act in the region.
       
      "They have asked for all irrelevant information. Even then we have no problems. They never paid us the money. We are ready with the information. They just have to give us the money and take away all the documents," said RR Kakkar, DFO forest, Hoshiarpur.
       
      Ten years ago, Gunraj Singh surrendered his American green card. Ever since he has been working hard in his fields in Hoshiarpur and also fighting a lone battle for the cause of environment and against corruption.
       
      It's been a tough going for him but now he feels Right to Information will definitely help him in his cause.
       
       
      RTI turns costly for Punjab farmer
    • By ganpat1956
      The heftiest penalty under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was imposed in Punjab Thursday when a government official was asked to deposit a fine of Rs.50,000 for failing to provide desired information to a citizen.
       
      Manjit Singh, who works with in Punjab Housefed - the state federation of cooperative house building societies - as project officer and public information officer, was asked to deposit the penalty within 10 days.
      If the officer fails to deposit the penalty, it would be deducted from his salary, state information commissioner P.K. Verma ordered.
       
      Under the RTI Act, the maximum penalty that can be levied is Rs.25,000. But in this case, the officer was levied two fines of Rs.25,000 each for failing to provide information to a person within the time stipulated in the law.
       
      Malkiat Singh had filed two separate applications seeking some information. Manjit Singh ignored both applications without assigning any reason. The delay was 126 days in one case and 173 days in another.
       
      When the applicant approached the commission, the officer did not bother to appear before it. Following this, the commission imposed two penalties of Rs 25,000 each on the officer. It also recommended disciplinary action against the officer by his department.
       
      Highest fine under RTI Act imposed in Punjab
    • By karira
      This is strange. As a layman none of the research topics look like affecting "natiuonal security" !
       
      NEW DELHI, APRIL 8 : The Government doesn’t want to explain why and how it decides to reject a research proposal by a foreign scholar.

       
      Responding to an application filed under the Right to Information Act by The Indian Express — which first exposed how the Government is not only delaying clearances to US research scholars but also forcing some of them to change their subjects — the Human Resource Development (HRD) Ministry refused to part with any information.
       
      Its response, signed by director Anupama Bhatnagar, cited the following as reasons: that this correspondent is “not an affected person” and that giving this information “would affect national security.”
      “...Due to its sensitive nature,” she replied, “disclosure of the information sought by you would prejudicially affect the security of India and its strategic/economic interests and might have adverse implications on our relations with foreign states.”
      The Home Ministry was a little more open.
      It did list the nine research proposals of US Fulbright scholars that the Government rejected “after due consideration of the sensitivity of the research proposals.”
      On the subject of why and how, the Home Ministry, too, declined to give any information other than saying: “(They were declined) after due consideration of the sensitivity of the research proposals.”
      These are the “sensitive” proposals:
      • Prospects and problems of outsourcing for India’s economic growth
      • Is tourism a win-win for local livelihoods and forest eco-systems in the Central highlands of India
      • The Imaginary Princess: A Muslim girl’s story
      • Language ideologies in Mumbai schools
      • India’s energy security
      • Women’s struggle for empowerment
      • Democratization in Kerala
      • Political Empowerment and Biodiversity in Kerala
      • Politics of land privatisation and access in Delhi.
      The Indian Express had highlighted the problem of granting visas to the Fulbright scholars in February this year, where delays ranged between 5 to 21 months. In some cases, the research proposals were rejected and a fresh topic was granted approval. The Government then decided to put a “red channel” and “green channel” in place but no decision has been taken yet.
    • By karira
      Jain case: disclose file, rules CIC
       
      Special Correspondent

      "Correspondence does not merit exemption under RTI Act"  

      He asked for copies of all file notings, opinions of the apex court collegium Law Ministry refused information on grounds of confidentiality, third party interests
       
      NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Saturday directed the disclosure of the file containing, among other things, the correspondence between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Law Minister on the controversial appointment of Justice Virender Jain as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
      Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah ruled that the correspondence contained in the file did not fall under Sec. 8 of the Right to Information Act, which gives exemption from disclosure to certain categories of sensitive information.
      The CIC, however, held that Justice Y.K. Sabharwal's July 27, 2006 letter to Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj contained references to a number of persons who were "third parties" to the matter. It was through this letter that the Chief Justice conveyed the decision of the Supreme Court collegium on the appointment of Mr. Justice Jain to the Law Minister.
      Mr. Habibullah directed the Principal Information Officer of the Ministry of Law & Justice to invite the third parties concerned to make written or oral submissions on the question of disclosure of information pertaining to them and ascertain if any them had valid objections against disclosure of information relating to them.
      The CIC further directed that in the event a valid ground was established, the appellant "may be supplied" with information excluding "the objectionable portion." He ordered the exercise to be completed within a month from the date of his decision. Appellant Subhash Chander Agrawal originally sought the complete file relating to Mr. Justice Jain's appointment from the President's Secretariat.
      He asked for copies of all file notings, the opinions of the members of the Supreme Court collegium as well as the correspondence between the President and the Prime Minister.
      The President's Secretariat transferred the petition to the Ministry of Law & Justice, which refused the information on grounds of confidentiality and third party interests. In arriving at his decision, the CIC relied upon a judgment of Justice P.K. Bhagwati who had ruled against granting immunity from disclosure to the correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi and the Chief Justice of India. Said Mr. Justice Bhagwati : "....Today the process of judicial appointments and transfers is shrouded in mystery. The exercise of the power of appointment and transfer remains a sacred ritual whose mystery is confined only to a handful of high priests, namely the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Minister of the State, the Law Minister of the Central Government and the Chief Justice of India ... We do not see any reason why this process of appointment and transfer should be regarded as so sacrosanct that no one should be able to pry into it..."
       
      The Hindu : National : Jain case: disclose file, rules CIC
    • Total Topics
      119,584
    • Total Posts
      425,878
    • Total Members
      486,355
    • Most Online
      12,211
      02/21/2018 03:26 AM

    Newest Member
    SAMANVIKA DIVYA
    Joined 04/21/2018 06:26 AM

Our Moderators

karira karira Super Moderator
ganpat1956 ganpat1956 Super Moderator
RAVEENA_O RAVEENA_O Super Moderator
ambrish.p ambrish.p Moderators
Sunil Ahya Sunil Ahya Moderators
jps50 jps50 Moderators

About Us

RTI INDIA established in the year 2006, attracts a broad audience of citizens, experts, professionals and Government Officers interested in the latest development in the field of Right to Information. We also boast an active community focused on helping citizens to File RTI, First Appeal and Second Appeals. Our download section contains many sample RTI forms for everybody to use.

Social Links

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy