Muncipal Council-Builder-State Information Commission nexus-Case disposed of without hearing to appellant

**R Madhok** · 05-26-2010, 09:01 PM

oNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style> Muncipal Council-Builder-State Information Commission Nexus

AC No. 392/ 2010 before the Bench of Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, State Information Commission, Punjab.

Notice of Hearing not delivered though the notices are being delivered to appellants vide Registered Post.
The State information Commission’s Deputy Registrar says that the notice had been sent by U.P.C. and presented the record of U.P.C. before the commission that I have not seen.

The builder-Municipal Council nexus is a familiar story but this experience came to light for the first time. On May 26, 2010 Rajneesh Madhok had a date of hearing fixed for today regarding his Second Appeal Rajneesh Madhok Vs Improvement Trust, Phagwara. Yesterday I searched in the cause list of hearings before the commission of the Bench of Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, this had not been uploded in the commission’s website.
Today when I reached in connection with the hearing of the case vs. Improvement Trust, Phagwara. I came to know from the hearings list that the case regarding Surinder Mohan Vs Municipal Council, Phagwara AC 392/ 2010 is also fixed for hearing. As Surinder Mohan is my uncle and the case had been filed through me and it is in the record of the commission also as the Second Appeal had been filed as my name as messanger.
Today I appealed to the State Information Commission that as the said appeal’s notice has not been served to Mr. Surinder Mohan so the date should be adjourned. The Honourable commission had been told that the reply had also been made to Rajneesh madhok and Rajneesh Madhok had signed the reply of the documents sent through Peon and entry has been made by Rajneesh Madhok in Peon book so the information has not been provided to Mr. Surinder Mohan.
The commission forbid me to represent in this case and said to me to that you may go out from the court room as your own case has been heard.
This case is connected with a large scale of violations in construction as in the last hearing with regard to this case during the inspection I found out that the basement of the said building has been approved for the area about 5 Kms away from the said area. With said building’s basement construction the adjoining buildings had been dumped and the Municipal Council’s roads also got dumped.
If the documents would have been provided in the last hearing to me then obviously the scam would have been unearted. But in the last hearing about 5 months back the Commission had rejected my plea saying that the fresh application should be filed in this case.
Then on filing the fresh application the nexus developed and the Commision disposed of the appeal without considering the view points of the Appellant. Though I pleaded before the commission on behalf of the appellant that as the notice has not been served then how the case be decided. But the Commission disposed of the case and told me if you want the information then file application again.
If the information would have been provided then it was obvious that the Municipal Council officials and staff would have been in big trouble as the basement is illegal, the construction has so many violations. The covered area is more than the prescribed limit. The map, compounding applications, the affidavits and all the documents prove the violations.
How the battle can be landed in logical end. To get the specific information I have been struggling for two years. Made umpteen rounds of the Municipal council office. Now the Muncipal Council PIO had formulated the unique method to dispose of the appeal. The Muncipal Council had been making tricks. Last time the PIO had also taken the acknowledgement whereas the documents had not been submitted. On my pleading before the commission the PIO has to deliver the documents but again those were unauthenticated and uncertified.
At the end of the hearing schedule I met the Honourable Commissioner and enquired about the decision. She told that the case was concerned with Third Party and the Muncipal Council PIO has submitted the obection from the Third Party so the information could not be provided. On my plea that Madam the case should be decided according to the Section 11 of the Act. Section 7(9) of the act does not authorize a Public authority to deny information. The PIO would have issued the notice to third party and the decision would have been taken by the FAA taking in to confidence to the Appellant. The case like this should not be disposed of. The commissioner said that you have no right to ask in this case.
 <o></o>
Rajneesh Madhok

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

**R Madhok** · 05-27-2010, 01:08 PM

Sponsorer

----- Original Message -----
From: rajneesh madhok
To: scic@punjabmail.gov.in
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:03 PM
Subject: AC No. 392/2010 Non delivery of notice of hearing due to non Adoption of Section 19(10) framed by SICP

Before Honourbale Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, State Information Commission, Punjab,

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

AC No. 392/2010
Surinder Mohan, May 27, 2010

C/o The Grace Sewing Machine Co,

Loha Mandi Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb) ------- Appellant

VS
1. Public Information Officer,

O/o Municipal Council,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

2. First Appellate Authorit-Cum-Executive Officer,

Municipal Council, Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

Sub: 1. NON-DELIVERY OF NOTICE OF HEARING FIXED FOR 26TH MAY 2010

2. Mode of Serving Notice Framed by SICP NOT ADOPTED: (Section 19(10) not adopted by SICP

Repsected madam,

As per the rules framed by the State Information Commission Punjab, the Hearing date on above-mentioned case had been fixed for 26th May 2010. The notice of hearing has not been served to me, secondly the notice had not been served according to the rules framed by State information commission, Punjab Section 19(10) which is appended below:

The commission may serve notice to the persons concerned in any of the following modes, namely:-

1. by hand delivery (dasti) through process server; or

2. by registered post with acknowledgement due; or

3. by publication in the news paper;

It is evident that the commission’s rules have not been complied by the Commission.

I submit as under:

1. Before the starting of the hearing my nephew Mr. Rajneesh Madhok had submitted the application before the commission that the appellant has not got the notice of hearing. As on attending his hearing before the commission regarding the case of Rajneesh Madhok Vs Improvement Trust, Phagwara he come to know about the date of hearing fixed for today and he made a call to me and I solemnly affirm and declare that no such order has been served to me regarding hearing. On this point he requested the commission to adjourn the hearing.

2. I have not got any sort of information so far. There is no receipt of supply of information to me so far. The said information had been delivered to Mr. Rajneesh Madhok with his initial dated 7/4/10 which is enclosed herewith.

3. Sec 2(f) Any information which comes in to the hands of the public authority is subject to disclosure, in public interest. The Right to information act emphasizes that democracy requires in informed citizenery and that transparency of information is vital of flawless functioning of constitutional democracy. So, all organs of the state must exhibit maximum transparency.

4. Third Party information ---Section 11(1) states that: The PIO shall give an opportunity to the third party for personal hearing for seeking his submission while the third party information is not treated as confidential but he should not be made aware about the details of the information. Kindly go through Er. Sarabjit Roy V Delhi Development Authority, 10/1/2005-CIC). The PIO has failed to provide what information is treated as confidential under Third Party category which should not be disclosed by the PIO. So, the commission is requsted to please direct the PIO to provide information as per Sect 8(1)(j) and 11 cannot be invoked to deny information. As this information is not held by the PIO and its disclosure will not be violation of the RTI Act, 2005. (Tilak Mohan Mathru V DDA, Delhi CIC/WB/A/2006/00126)

5. “A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved” [Saiyad Mohd. V Abdulhabib, (a988) 4 SCC 343]

6. “A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Rules of Procedure are intended to be handmaid to the Administration of Justice and they must therefore be construed liberally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective” [Ram Manohar Lal Vs NBM Supply, AIR 1969 (17-03-1969 SC]

7. “ A common sense should not be kept in the cold storage when pleadings are construed. Parties win or lose on substantial questions, not on technical tortures and Courts cannot be “abettors” [Noronha V Prem Kumari, AIR 1980.]

8. “Every venial defect or error not going to the root of the matter cannot be allowed to defeat justice or afford an excuse to the Government or a Public Officer to deny just claim” [Jones V Nicholls, (1844) 13 M 8 W 361]

Prayer:

Kindly provide the fresh date of hearing for the provision of seeking information under Right to information act, 2005.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

(Surinder Mohan)

C/o The Grace Sewing Machine Co,

Loha Mandi Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)