RTI: Security cover info denied

[sidmis]

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

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• Horrifying conditions of Private Security guards
• House seeks info cover
• Are Govt Security Agencies covered under RTI
• Govt official taking cover of security to deny info
• Ex-Headmaster denied info under RTI Act

[shakti]

Sponsorer

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

[sidmis]

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

[shakti]

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

[CENTER][CENTER]THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

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.



[CENTER][CENTER]THROUGH SPEED POST / REGISTERED POST – A.D[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

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: ....................

[karira]

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.