STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054

Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sadhu Ram Kusla,

S/o Sh. Ram Chand,

H. No. 138, Veer Colony,

Maharaja Aggarsen Road,

Bathinda ..…Complainant

Vs

Public Information Officer,

O/o The Vice Chancellor,

Punjab Tech. University,

Kapurthala Road,

Jalandhar ..…Respondent

Complaint Case No. 466 of 2015

ORDER

The Judgment in the instant Complaint case was reserved vide order dated 07-10-2015.

The facts of instant case are as below:-

i) The present complaint was moved to the State Information Commission, Punjab

(hereinafter as Commission only), by Sh. Sadhu Ram Kusla against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar, on 28-01-2015.

ii) Sh. Kusla moved this complaint under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter Act only) after he failed to get any response or got unsatisfactory response from the PIO concerned of the PTU in response to the queries, which he has raised in his application moved to PIO on 12-11-2014 under the Act.

iii) Sh. Kusla, who sent his application to the PIO of PTU, Jalandhar through registered/speed post, has sought for semester wise information regarding number of students to whom roll numbers were issued by PTU Jalandhar and total amount of admission fee required to be deposited of these students as per course modules from the Academic Session September 2005 to March 2014 under Distance Education Programme for the Learning Centers of A. N. Island, A. P., Bihar and Assam States. List of Learning Centers, for which the information is requested, was also attached with the application.

iv) Sh. Kusla after having failed to get the requisite information against his request from the PIO concerned moved a complaint on 28-01-2015 and the same was received in the Commission through dairy number 2852 on 04-02-2015.

-2-

v) In the complaint, he made prayer that Commission must issue an order to the PIO/APIO to supply him the required information without any delay and information should be duly attested. He also made prayer that Rs. 60/-, which had been sent alongwith the application to the PIO, should be refunded to him.

vi) The other prayer, which he also made in the compliant, is connected with the fact that a penalty to the tune of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) per day be imposed on the PIO of the PTU for denying him the information sought for by him when the same information was readily available with the PIO concerned.

vii) Taking the cognizance of the complaint of Sh. Kusla, the Commission issued a notice under the Act to the parties concerned including the PIO of PTU directing them to join/associate with the proceedings of this complaint case, before the Commission.

viii) During the first hearing of this case before the bench of undersigned, held on 31-03-2015, Sh. Kusla submitted that he had sought for information to expose/unveil a scam pertaining to the bungling made in collection of examination fee, admission fee, income tax and service tax from different learning centers of Punjab Technical University, running in different states of the Country. He also submitted that total scam, which has taken place with the connivance of authorities concerned and the people, who were running those centers, is worth about Rs. 500 Crores.

ix) He submitted that he had also sent an envelope, duly stamped, to the PIO concerned for getting the requisite information sought for by him in his RTI request. He had also sent the amount of Rs. 15/- to the PIO in lieu of the fee of information.

x) He also submitted that he had also sent a written offer to the PIO that he will be depositing the additional fee for getting the requisite information, whenever the same will be demanded by the PIO concerned from him.

xi) He submitted that as the PTU authorities have already admitted that in nine learning centers, the total worth of scam is more than Rs. 17 lakhs. Again the PTU authorities revised that amount of scam by claiming that the total amount of scam is not Rs. 17 lakhs, but it is more than Rs. 36 lakhs. The PTU authorities again came out with the revised estimate and admitted that total worth of scam is about Rs. 96 lakhs.

xii) He also submitted that he could have established the fact that hundreds of crores of rupees have been siphoned off by the PTU authorities concerned in connivance with those people, who have been running these learning centers in different states of the country, if he managed to get information against the queries of his RTI request.

-3-

xiii) Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar, PTU, who appeared on behalf of the Sh. Kishore Luthra, Assistant Registrar-cum-PIO, PTU, in first hearing, held on 31.03.2015, stated that the information would be supplied to the Sh. Kusla, as per official record and in the same format, in which format it existed on record, within five weeks from that day.

xiv) He also mentioned that Sh. Kishore Luthra, Assistant Registrar, PTU, Jalandhar, was PIO in this case. Again he claimed, during the hearing, held on 09-06-2015, that Sh. Luthra was PIO in this case. He has also given written statement in this regard.

xv) On the next date of hearing, held on 07-05-2015, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar, PTU, who was present alongwith Sh Piyush Khanna, Advocate, submitted that information had been sent to Sh. Kusla through registered post on 07-05-2015 itself.

xvi) As Sh. Kusla was absent from the hearing, held on 07-05-2015, he was advised to point out the deficiencies in the information supplied to him to the respondent PIO and PIO was directed to remove the same.

xvii) During the hearing, held on 09-06-2015, Sh. Kusla submitted that he got the bunch of pages, weighing about one kilogram, from the Additional State Public Information Officer (Nodal Officer), PTU and he found that whatever information, which had been sent to him, was irrelevant and did not match with the queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xviii) He submitted that he had written a letter in this regard to the respondent PIO concerned on 14.05.2015 through registered post.

xix) He also pleaded that instead of supplying the requisite information to him, the respondent PIO/his representatives had sent him irrelevant information by spending lot of money on the same exercise and hence they had wasted funds of the PTU, which could have been used for meaningful purposes. He also pleaded that scam of PTU must be probed by State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab.

xx) Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar-cum-APIO, who appeared on behalf of the respondent PIO, stated that a DVD and a bunch of pages were sent to Sh. Kusla through registered post separately.

xxi) He kept on insisting that requisite information has been supplied to Sh. Kusla but failed to prove that as to how and as to when requisite information has been supplied to Sh. Kusla, when he was asked to prove the same in the hearing on that day.

-4-

xxii) A show cause was issued to Sh. Luthra under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act that as to why penalty be not imposed upon him for willful delay/denial in supplying the information to the RTI applicant and why the compensation be not awarded to the information-seeker under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

xxiii) In addition to his submission, the PIO was also given an opportunity for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty.

xxiv) On the next hearing, held on 15-07-2015, Sh. Kusla alleged that the respondent PIO concerned had not made compliance of the order of the Commission made on 09.06.2015. He stated that whatever information had been supplied to him till that day was wrong and not according to the queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xxv) He stated that wrong information was supplied to him despite the fact that he had explained to the authorities concerned about the kind/type of information sought for him, during his meeting with officers/officials concerned on 15.06.2015 at PTU Campus, Jalandhar. He stated that he was called to PTU campus by the respondent PIO concerned and Director, Distant Education of PTU, Jalandhar, to discuss the issue personally.

xxvi) On this Sh. Piyush Khanna, Advocate, stated that some sort of communication gap had developed between Sh. Kusla and the respondent PIO concerned regarding the information, to be supplied as per queries raised by Sh. Kusla in his RTI request. He requested in writing vide letter dated 15.07.2015 that one more opportunity be given so that issue could be resolved and relevant information could be supplied to the information seeker to his satisfaction.

xxvii) During the hearing on 12-08-2015, Sh. Luthra, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Parvesh Aspal, Assistant Registrar-cum-SPIO (accounts), PTU, submitted their respective written statements. However, Sh. Luthra did not file any reply against the show cause issued to him.

xxviii) On 03-09-2015, Sh. Luthra stated before the Commission that the requisite information had already been supplied to Sh. Kusla.

xxix) Sh. Kusla, however, expressed his dissatisfaction over the information supplied to him and pointed out that he had not received complete information in connection with Learning Centers Code (L C Code) and name of the stations as per queries raised by him in his RTI request.

xxx) On this the respondent PIO concerned was directed to submit a reply clarifying the fact that as to whether information in connection with L C Code and station name was available in the official record or not. If the required information was not available in official record, the

-5-

respondent PIO would file an affidavit stating that the requisite information was not available in office-record or was missing.

xxxi) During this hearing, Sh. Luthra submitted a reply, dated 28-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit signed by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar. He also submitted another reply, dated 21-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit signed by Sh. Parvesh Aspal, AR/SPIO (Accounts). He also submitted a reply, dated 28-08-2015, in the shape of an affidavit, to the show cause issued to him.

xxxii) On the next date of hearing, held on 07-10-2015, Sh Luthra placed a written submission on the record despite the fact that he was asked to file an affidavit to the effect that as to whether information in connection with L C Code and station name was available in the official record or not and if the required information was not available in official record, then he was bound to make statement that the requisite information was not available in office-record or has gone missing.

xxxiii) Apart from the submissions made by the officers concerned of PTU, as mentioned above, in this case, Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar and Sh. Parvesh Aspal, Assistant Registrar also submitted their written statements and affidavits.

xxxiv) Sh. Kusla made a detailed written submission, which was received in the Commission through dairy number 23943, dated 16-09-2015.

xxxv) The submission of Sh. Kusla is reproduced as below:-

“Respectfully submitted that above mentioned complaint case has been fixed for 07.10.2015 at 11.00 AM before before Sh. Chander Parkash, Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. In this regard following submissions are made :-

1. 31.03.2015

The Hon’ble Commission was informed by the undersigned that this information is required to expose/ unveil a scam pertaining to the bungling made in collection of examination fee, admission fee, Income Tax and Service Tax from different learning centers of Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, running in different states of the Country. It was also submitted that total scam, which has taken place with the connivance of authorities concerned and the people, who are running those centers, is about Rs 500 Crores.

SPIO PTU Jalandhar assured the Hon’ble Commission that information will be supplied as per official record, within 5 weeks i.e. up to 05.05.2015.

-6-

The case was adjourned for 07.05.2015

2. 07.05.2015

APIO alongwith his Advocate informed the Hon’ble Commission that requisite information has already been sent to the applicant (undersigned) through registered post today itself i.e. 07.05.2015 . A copy of the postal receipt was taken on record by the Hon’ble Commission.

As the undersigned was not present due to some reasons, the Hon’ble Commission advised the undersigned to confirm whether the information has been received or not and also advised to point out deficiencies in the information supplied in writing to the PIO and PIO was directed to remove the same before the next date of hearing.

The case was adjourned for 09.06.2015

14.05.2015

Vide my letter no. PTU/RTI/15/1263 Dated 14.05.2015 PIO, PTU was informed that required information has not been sent to the undersigned and copies of prospectus has been sent under Registered Cover which were never demanded . A copy of this letter was also sent to the Hon’ble State Information Commission, Punjab.

04.06.2015

Assistant Director, PTU vide letter no. PTU/DDE/12324 Dated 04.06.15 informed the undersigned that information relating to September 2005 to March 2014 for all States has been sent through CD/DVD. From this you can get detail through filter. Copies of prospectus have been sent so that you may know the course fee for IT and Non IT courses. Details of learning centres such as Location / Address / Contact nos is also available.