www.PunjabColleges.com
Largest database of Universities and Colleges in India situated in more than 11,000 towns)

Home | Colleges | Contact Us
Enter College / University Name or City:
Punjab Colleges
Pvt Institutes in Punjab


SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Punjab



Contact


SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Punjab
Sultanpur Lodhi (District Kapurthala)
Punjab, India



SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab is a recognised institute / college.
Principal of SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab is Mrs Vandana Shukla.

SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab is situated in Sultanpur Lodhi of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab are 98140-02609, 98728-39046.

email ID(s) is SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab

Chairman : Dinesh Dhir 98140-02609.

Contact Details of SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab are : Telephone: +91-1828-22116, 222237

Principal:
Mrs. Vandana Shukla
896, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar City.
DOB : 27-01-1970
O-01828-222116, 222237, Res 01828- 222467


Courses




SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab runs course(s) in Degree stream(s).

SD College for Women is affiliated with Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Amritsar (Punjab)



Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to SD College for Women

Fate Fair held at SD College (SD College for Women)
News: 17th November, 2013
Fate Fair held at SD College
Lady Asstt Professor (SD College for Women)
Job Vacancy: 5th June, 2013
Lady Asstt Professor

Lady Asstt Professor (Job Vacancy)
Lady Asstt Professor (Job Vacancy)
Lecturer and Librarian (Job Vacancy)
Divya ko fat queen ka taj (News)
SD College me Vanmahotsav (News)
Khud par vishvas se milegi safalta (News)
Lady Lecturer and Librarian (Job Vacancy)
Lecturer in Pbi and Hindi (Job Vacancy)
Wanted Principal (Job Vacancy)

Media coverage of SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab, Punjab

Harjinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Mrs. Harjinder Kaur w/o Dr. K.S. Gill,
10, Rose Avenue, Backside Officers Colony, Ferozepur City. -------------Complainant.

Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Principal S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala. --------Respondent.

CC No. 1746 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
None on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

On the last date of hearing on 7.7.2011, the respondent had submitted that the information had been furnished to complainant. It was further averred that there is no merit in the complaint case and the same be dismissed.

2. However, the complainant was absent and the case was adjourned to give her one more opportunity to file her reply/rejoinder or confirm that she is satisfied with the information given to her. However, the complainant has not availed of this opportunity and she is again absent today without intimation. Hence, the complaint case is closed.

(R.I. Singh)
July 21, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

Harjinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Mrs. Harjinder Kaur w/o Dr. K.S. Gill,
10, Rose Avenue, Backside Officers Colony, Ferozepur City.
-------------Complainant.
Vs.

The Public Information Officer
o/o the Principal S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala. --------Respondent.

CC No. 1746 of 2011

Present:-
None on behalf of the complainant.
Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent alongwith Mrs. Geeta Sanghar, PIO on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

The respondent submits that the query of the complainant dated 29.4.2011 was duly replied to by the PIO on 28.5.2011. Subsequently another reply was also sent vide NO.1794/11 dated 4.7.2011, a copy of which has been placed on the case file of the Commission. The plea of the respondent is that there is no merit in the complaint and the same may be dismissed.
2. The complainant, however, is absent without intimation. To give one opportunity to the complainant, the case is adjourned to 21.7.2011 at 10.30 A.M.
3. On the request of the respondent, they are exempted from appearance on that date.


(R.I. Singh)
July 7, 2011. Chief Information Commissioner
Punjab

GITA RANI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Civil Writ Petition 1849 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : February 01, 2011.

Gita Rani .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

Present :
Mr.G.P.Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents
including the Managing Committee of S.D.College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala to grant her the House Rent Allowance from the due date alongwith arrears and interest.

The petitioner is in service of the respondent-College as a Lecturer in History since 27.10.1976 and is due for retirement w.e.f. 5.12.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. She urges that as per her service conditions she is entitled to be paid the House Rent Allowance but the respondents have illegally withheld the same despite numerous representations followed by a legal notice dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P16) served on her behalf.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the above mentioned claim of the petitioner as contained in the legal notice (Annexure P-16) also, by passing a speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to, the consequential benefits shall also be released within the
stipulated period.

Ordered accordingly.

(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

………………………………..Respondent
CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present:
(i) Sh. Baljit Singh, on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Clerk on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant has authorized Sh. Baljit Singh to appear on her behalf for today’s hearing. Complainant has submitted that compensation has been paid to her but she has not been allowed to inspect the record in spite of repeated visits to the office of the Respondent.

3. In the affidavit submitted by the PIO, it is stated that month-wise details of salary paid to the Complainant has been supplied to her, whereas the Complainant has again brought to the notice of the Commission that Respondent has neither provided information i.e complete details of salary mentioning the basic pay/ D.A/HRA/Medical/IR and PF deduction etc. nor has allowed her to inspect the record. Only total salary received by her has been provided.

4. Respondent is directed to allow the Complainant to inspect the record and provide the photocopies of the documents pointed out by the Complainant after the inspection. In case of failure to allow the Complainant to inspect the record, action will be taken against the Respondent under Section 18(1)(b) of the RTI Act.

5. Adjourned to 27.04.10 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties. Sd/-

(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 15th March , 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

ORDER

The judgment in this case was reserved on 04.02.2010.

2. Vide my order dated 04.12.2009, Respondent was called upon to show cause why penalty be not imposed upon him for not supplying the information within time and also why the Complainant be not compensated for the harassment and loss suffered by him as a result of the delay in serving her RTI application. Vide the same order the Respondent was also directed to provide the remaining information and also to bring the complete record in the Commission on the next date of hearing.

3. On the next date of hearing i.e 07.01.2010, the information as demanded by the Complainant was provided to her in the Commission. The Complainant was advised to go through the same and point out the deficiencies in the information supplied. An affidavit has also been filed by the Principal-cum-PIO of the college which was sworn by her on 06.01.2010. It is stated in this affidavit that the PIO acted promptly as per the directions of the Commission and the delay is not deliberate. It is also stated that for some time the information was with-held on account of the legal advice obtained by the Respondent.

4. On the perusal of the affidavit, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 20 RTI Act 2005. However, on account of lack of proper guidelines and suitable mechanism in the office of PIO there has been considerable delay in providing the information to the Complainant. The Complainant has had to attend six hearings before the Commission. She has been coming to Chandigarh from Kapurthala. In this view of the matter, ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant. The compensation will be paid by the Respondent college to the Complainant within seven days of the receipt of this order. To come up for confirmation of compliance on 15.03.10 (at 11.00 AM). Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/- (Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 19th February, 2010 State Information Commissioner

G S Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 32-33-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S. Sikka,
43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana. …..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala. ….Respondent


C.C. NO. 679 of 2008
ORDER


Present: -
None on on behalf of the Complainant.
Shri Amit Mehta, Avocate, on behalf of Smt.Harjinder Kaur-Respondent College,
Shri Jain Parkash, Superintendent for S.D.College for Women, on behalf of the PIO-Respondent.

Shri Amit Mehta, Counsel for Mrs. Mrs. Harjinder Kaur states that CWP No.18289 of 2009 titled as Harjinder Kaur V/s Punjab State Information Commission & others has been filed in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is pending for 26.3.2010 for the services of the Respondents. As the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, so, the case is adjourned sine die till the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. The Respondent is directed to submit a copy of decision when it is done.
` Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 04.02.2010 State Information Commissioner.

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present:
(i) Smt. Pushpa Wati, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash, Suptd., on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 4th February, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present :
(i) Sh. Pushpa Wati, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash, Suptd., on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent has provided information to the Complainant today in the Commission. Complainant is advised to go through the same and point out the deficiencies, if any, to the Respondent before the next date of hearing. Respondent has also submitted an affidavit in response to the show cause. Respondent states that copies of the acquaintance roll provided to the Complainant, it is clear that no detail of Pay, D.A, Medical Allowances, HRA and PF etc. was incorporated in salary register prior to the period of 1993-94 that is why salary statement and details could not be provided by way of acquaintance roll, hence provided by the way of personal ledger introduced by DPI (Colleges), Pb from the year 1986-87 onwards.

3. Adjourned to 04.02.10 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 07th January, 2010 State Information Commissioner

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present:
(i) Smt. Pushpa Wati, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash, Suptd. on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant states that she has pointed out deficiencies in the information already provided to her. Respondent has also provided information regarding salary statement to the Complainant, today in the Commission. Complainant is advised to go through the same and point out the deficiencies, if any, in the information provided to the Respondent before the next date of hearing. Respondent is directed to provide information relating to deficiencies pointed out by the Complainant before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 04.12.09 (11.00 AM) for further proceeding. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 05th November, 2009 State Information Commissioner

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S. Sikka,
43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana. …..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala. ….Respondent


C.C. NO. 679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant as well as Respondent..

This complaint case was heard on 22.4.2009 and a penalty of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon Dr. Vandana Shukla-cum-PIO of the Respondent College. A compensation of Rs.1000/- was also awarded in favour of the Complainant. This was adjourned to 29.7.2009. On 29.7.2009 the Complainant sent written message that he has received a compensation of Rs.1000/- from the Respondent Public Authority through its Principal-cum-PIO. On the same date the Respondent PIO made a submission that she had received the order of the Commission dated 22.4.2009 on 6.6.2009 in which a penalty of Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.1000/- was ordered to be paid by the PIO and Public Authority respectively. She further stated that request for information dated 6.2.2008 which was received in the Respondent College on 14.2.2008 was made by the Complainant to the Public Information Officer of the College when Smt. Harjinder Kaur was officiating as Principal and working as PIO of the College for the period from 30.8.2007 to 22.5.2008. She also stated that the then PIO Smt. Harjinder kaur asked the Complainant on 14.3.2008 to make good the deficiency in the payment of RTI Fee and consequently the compliance was made by the Complainant on 22.3.2008. She further stated that complete information has been supplied to the Complainant on 7.4.2008 whereas the Complainant filed the complaint before the Commission on 4.3.2008 which was quite premature. The present PIO further stated that the written reply to show cause notice submitted on 22.4.2009 was not placed on the relevant complaint file of the Commission which was to be taken into consideration at the time of passing the order dated 22.4.2009 of imposition of penalty. Consequently Smt. Harjinder Kaur former PIO-cum-Officiating Principal who received the request for information was called upon to present her case on 7.9.2009 at 12 Noon before the Commission. Copy of this order were sent to both the parties and Smt. Harjinder Kaur above. The case was adjourned to 7.9.2009 and postponed and fixed on 4.11.2009 at 12 Noon. On 4.11.2009 the Complainant and Smt. Harjinder Kaur former Principal of the College-cum-PIO did not appear or she has sent any rebuttal to the notice contained in the order dated 29.7.2009. The present PIO-cum-Principal of the College sent a fax message showing her inability to attend the Commission on 4.11.2009 due to her illness. From the Act of Smt. Harjinder Kaur former Officiating Principal-cum-PIO of the Respondent College by not sending any reply to the notice nor come present on the date of hearing, it is clear that she has nothing to say in her favour. As a result of above the order dated 22.4.2009 is modified to the extent that penalty of Rs.5000/- is imposed on Smt. Harjinder Kaur which should be paid in the Government Treasury under the following heard of account within a period of 15 days, failing which the DPI (Colleges) should take action to get the amount recovered from her salary and intimated to the Commission.

0070-Other Administrative Services.
60- Other Services.
800- Other Receipts.
86- Fee under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties and Smt. Harjinder Kaur, former Officiating Principal of the Respondent College and DPI Colleges for meticulous compliance.

To come up for confirmation of compliance on 10.12.2009 at 12 Noon in the Chamber.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 4.11.2009 State Information Commissioner.



CC: (1) DPI (C) Punjab Sector-17, Chandigarh.
(2) Smt. Harjinder Kaur former PIO and Principal of S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala

Giano versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Smt. Giano,
W/o Sh. Jagir Ram,
Ex Water Women (Peon),
S.D College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
SD, College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
(2) Public Information Officer,
O/o DPI (Colleges), Pb,
Chandigarh.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1769 of 2009

Present:
(i) Smt. Giano, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Ranbir Singh, Section Officer, O/o DPI, College and Sh. Jain Parkash, Suptd., O/o SD, College for women, Kapruthala on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

Heard
2. During the hearing dated 08.10.2009, it was directed as under:-
i) Respondent No.1 i.e PIO O/o Principal, S.D.College for women, Sultanpur Lodhi shall supply information to the Complainant for the period 1985-86 to 1986-87.
ii) Respondent No.2 i.e DPI (Colleges) shall supply information from the period 1987-88, 1988-89 & 1989-90.

3. In today’s hearing, Respondent of the DPI, Colleges has provided the copy of the information to the Complainant. Complainant states that documents provided by the Principal, SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi are not readable. PIO O/o Principal, SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala is directed to provide the readable information to the Complainant within one week from the receipt of this order.

4. Adjourned to 20.11.09 (11.00 AM) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
Dated: 30th October, 2009 State Information Commissioner

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala, Pin-144626.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
………………………………..Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present:
(i) Smt. Pushpa Wati, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Complainant states that she has filed two applications for information both dated 09.03.2009. In the first application she has demanded details of provident fund and in the second application she has sought information regarding month-wise detail of the salary mentioning basic pay, DA/ADA/HRA/Medical/IR. Respondent states that during the last hearing, Commission only directed to provide the details of the provident fund and the same has been provided to the complainant. Respondent further states that, no order was passed by the Commission in the last hearing to provide the details of payment of salary. Respondent is now directed to provide the information regarding salary details as sought by the Complainant in his application for information before the next date of hearing.

3. Adjourned to 05.11.09 (at 02.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Dated: 25th September, 2009 (Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner

Pushpa Wati versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Smt. Pushpa Wati,
Ex Library Attdt,
W/o Sh. Bhagwat Dutt Sharma,
Moh. Upplan, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt- Kapurthala, Pin- 144626.
-------Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
SD, College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.
--------Respondent

CC No. 1768 of 2009

Present: (i) Smt. Pushpa Wati, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Parkash, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent


ORDER

2. Complainant states that no information has been received by her so far. Respondent states that Civil Suit is pending in the Civil Court at Sultanpur Lodhi, so being sub-judice no information has been given to the Complainant. Complainant states that the Civil Suit is for proper disbursement of retrial benefits etc, it does not confer any right on the college authorities to deny me the correct information. The information demanded by the Complainant in his application dated 09.02.2009 is as under:-

1. Whether any pass book with regard to the provident fund of the applicant as per prevision of GNDU Amritsar calendar was maintained? If yes, supply me original complete pass bookattested copy of the same mentioning month -wise detail of employee’s and employer’s share and the date of deposit of each months PF and interest thereon from 02.12.1981 till my retirement on 06.07.2003. If pass book not maintained then state the reason for the same.

2. Month wise and year wise detail of PF amount (mentioning employees and employers share separately and date of deposit) with cumulative total, deposited with any bank (Mentioning the name and my account No.) or with EPF commissioner from 02.12.1981 to 06.07.2003.

3. Detail (with date and amount) of any withdrawal (refundable and non refundable) by the applicant from her provident fund account mentioning the agency. (Bank or EPF commissioner) and the purpose of withdrawal and state whether the withdrawn amount was re-deposited by the applicant in the Provident Fund account or not.

4. Respondent is directed to provide the sought for information to the Complainant free of cost as per provision of the RTI Act 2005 before the next date of hearing as no stay has been granted by the Court in this case.

5. Adjourned to 25.09.09 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner

Sh KS Gill versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. K.S. Gill,
10, Rose, Avenue,
Backside Officer’s Colony,
Ferozepur City. ….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal of S.D. College,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala. …. .Respondent

CC NO. 2445 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Shri K.S. Gill, Complainant in person.
Dr.Vandana Shukla, Principal-cum-PIO and Shri V.K.Narula, Assistant on behalf of the Respondent.

During the course of arguments in the court, I have gone through each point of the original application dated 7.08.2009 and I have come to the conclusion that all documents have been provided except 2(A) which runs as under:-
“Copy of the document(s) on the basis of which Mrs. Vandana Shukla joined as Principal of S.D. College, Sultanpur Lodhi”.

The Complainant raised controversy about date of joining of Ms.Vandana Shukla Principal of respondent College whether it is 27-05-2008 or 23-05-2008. I have discussed this matter with both the parties and the respondent has given in writing to the Complainant. This is not a subject matter of complaint for adjudication by the Commission. The Complainant may represent about it before proper forum. In view of above the case is disposed of.

A copy of order be sent to both the parties.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 03.08.2009 State Information Commissioner.

Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S. Sikka,
43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…..Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala. ….Respondent

C.C. NO. 679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
None on behalf of the Complainant.
Smt. Vandana Shukla, PIO-cum-Principal on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant has sent a written message that he has received compensation of Rs.1000/- from the Respondent through Mrs. Vandana Shukla and requested that the case may be closed.
The Complainant filed application on 6.2.2008 and on the first hearing on 20.8.2008, only Shri Amit Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent was present. On the second hearing, i.e. on 29-09-2009 none appeared on behalf of the Respondent and the Complainant stated that incomplete information was supplied on 17.4.2008. As per fourth order dated 25.2.2009, show cause notice was issued to the PIO, when Shri Amit Mehta, Advocate along with Shri Jai Parkash, Supdt came present. In this order, it was directed that if the PIO does not avail himself the opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say and the Commission shall proceed to take further action against him/her ex-parte.

Mrs. Vandana Shukla, PIO-cum-Principal contends that she has received the order dated 22.4.2009 on 6.6.2009 in which a penalty of Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.1000/- on PIO and Public Authority respectively have been imposed. She further contends that the request for information dated 6.2.2008 which was received in the Respondent-College on 14.2.2008 was made by the Complainant to the PIO of the College when Mrs.Harjinder Kaur was officiating as Principal and working as PIO of the College for the period from 30.8.2007 to 22.5.2008. She further continued that the PIO asked the Complainant on 14.3.2008 to make good the deficiency of the fee as per RTI Act/Rules and consequently she made good the deficiency on 22.3.2008. She further states that complete information has been supplied to the Complainant on 7.4.2008, when the Complainant filed the Complaint before the Commission on 4.3.2008 which was quite premature and deserved to be filed.
The Respondent further stated that the written reply to show cause was given on 22.4.2009 (Photo-copy attached) which was misplaced by the former PS/SIC and therefore the same was not taken into consideration at the time of passing the order dated 22.4.2009.
It is directed that Mrs.Harjinder Kaur, former PIO-cum-officiating Principal should be called on the next date of hearing. The Complainant is not present today.

The case is fixed for further consideration of penalty on 7.09.2009 at 12:00 PM in the Chamber.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties and to Mrs.Harjinder Kaur, the then PIO-cum-officiating Principal,(now Lecturer Pol. Science), S.D. College for Women,Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.

Sd/-
Chandigarh (Mrs. Ravi Singh)
Dated: 29.07.2009 State Information Commissioner.


Copy: Mrs. Harjinder Kaur, the then PIO-cum-Officiting Principal (Now Lecturer
Pol. Science), S.D.College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.

Dr Rajinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Rajinder Kaur,
S.D. College for women,
Stultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1253 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Dr. Rajinder Kaur, Complainant along with Sh. G.S. Sikka, Advocate.
Smt. Vandana Shukla, Principal along with Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate.

In the earlier order dated 25.02.2009, PIO, Vandana Shukla was directed to appear personally to explain why the letter No. SDC/MC/150/97 dated 29.04.1997 is not available in the record of the College. Today PIO is present and presents a letter dated 25.03.2009 stating that “as the information desired by the complainant was in the custody of DPI (C), Punjab, Chandigarh and the inordinate delay has been caused due to non supplying of the information by the said office. The information as received on dated 10.02.2009 was supplied to the complainant which has been obtained after lot of correspondence with the said office. So the penalty may not be imposed, please.”
She is also giving in writing that a letter which has been presented by the complainant dated 29.04.1997 is only with the President of the College not in the custody of the S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi. The complainant is directed that fresh application should be submitted to the Management of S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi for obtaining further information in this case. Therefore, the case is hereby closed and disposed of.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 22.04.2009

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S. Sikka,
43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. G.S. Sikka, Complainant in person.
Smt. Vandana Shukla, Principal along with Amit Mehta, Advocate.

Information has been provided to the complainant on 08.12.2008 in the presence of the Court. He demands penalty and compensation as five hearings have taken place. Judgement is reserved.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 22.04.2009

Sh KS Gill versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. K.S. Gill,
10, Rose Avenue,
Back side officer’s Colony,
Ferozepur City.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal of S.D. College,
Sutanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2445 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. K.S. Gill, Complainant in person.
Smt. Vandana Shukla, Principal is present.

In the earlier order dated 04.02.2009 it was recorded that point No. 2 (a) and certified copies of the dispatch register pertaining to the period from 01.07.2007 to 10.06.2008 should be provided. Today part information has been provided and the respondent is directed to give her statement in writing which she stated in the Court. She is also directed to provide a reference letter dated 23.05.2008 and 27.05.2008 mentioned in the letter of Deputy Director dated 06.06.2008.
The next date of hearing will be in Chamber on 27.05.2009 at 12:00 noon.


Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 20.04.2009

KS Gill versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. K.S.Gill,
10, Rose Avenue,
B/s Officer Colony,
Ferozepur City,

………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o S.D. College for women,.
Sultanpur Lodhi
Kapurthala

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3071 of 2008

Present:
(i) None is present on behalf of the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Jain Prakash, Suptd on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Respondent states that as directed by the Commission, information relating to item no.2 & 3 has been sent to the Complainant by registered post on 23.03.2009. Complainant is absent. He was also absent on the last hearing. It is presumed that he is satisfied with the information provided. No further action is required.

3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 8th April, 2009

S D COLLEGE FOR WOMEN SULTANPUR LODHI KAPURTHAL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB and OTHERS



Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S. Sikka,
43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. G.S. Sikka, Complainant in person.
Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate and Jain Parkash, Supdt on behalf of the Respondent.

Information has been provided to the complainant on 17.02.2009. He demands penalization under section 20(1) since the original application was made on 06.02.2008. Directions were also given to the APIO to appear in this court under section 18(3) but there has been no response from them. This is against the directions of the commission. Therefore, PIO is hereby issued a show cause notice as to why action should not be taken against him by imposing a penalty of Rs. 250/- each day till the information is furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed to Rs. 25,000/- as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In addition to the written reply, the PIO is also hereby given an opportunity u/s 20(1) proviso thereto for a personal hearing before the imposition of such penalty on the next date of hearing. He may take note that in case he does not file his written reply and does not avail himself of the opportunity of personal hearing on the date fixed, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say and the Commission shall proceed to take further proceedings against him ex parte.
A copy of this order is being sent to Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh.
The next date of hearing will be in the Chambers on 22.04.2009 at 12:00 noon.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 25.02.2009

C.C.

Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh for information and necessary action.

KS Gill versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. K.S.Gill,
10, Rose Avenue,
B/s Officer Colony,
Ferozepur City,

………………………….Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o S.D. College for women,.
Sultanpur Lodhi
Kapurthala

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 3071 of 2008

Present:
(i) Sh. K.S.Gill, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Vandhana Shukla, Principal on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard

2. Complainant states that he has sought information vide his application dated 13.09.2008, but the Respondent, has denied the information vide his letter dated 15.11.2008 being third party. Complainant further states that staff members are claming house rent by giving false addresses. Information sought by him is in public domain. He should be provided this information.

3. Respondent states that the sought for information relating to the addresses of the staff has been denied as the staff has given in writing that information relating to them should not be disclosed for security reasons.

4. As the information sought is in public interest. Respondent is directed to provide the information relating to item no. 2 & 3 to the Complainant within one month.

5. Adjourned to 08.04.09 (at 12.00 noon) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 24th Feb, 2009

KS Gill versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. K.S. Gill,
10, Rose Avenue,
B/s Officer’s Colony,
Ferozepur.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal of S.D. College,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 2445 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. K.S. Gill, Complainant in person.
Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Principal on behalf of the Respondent.

Sh. K.S. Gill filed a complaint on 15.10.2008 that his original application dated 07.08.08 has not been attended to.
Information sought is regarding:-
1. “Copy of dispatch Register (maintained by the college) pertaining to 01.07.2007 to 10.06.2008.
2. Mrs. Harjinder Kaur officiated as Principal of the College please give dates of commencement of her tenure and its termination.
a. Copy of the document on the basis of which Mrs. Vandana Shukla joined as Principal of S.D. College, Sultanpur Lodhi.
b. Name of the Newspaper (S) in which the advertisement was published, inviting applications(s) for the post of Principal.
c. Copy of advertisement(s), specifically mentioning the dates of publications.”

Information has been provided to the complainant on five points except point No. (a) and certified copies of the dispatch register pertaining to 01.07.2007 to 10.06.2008. Rajinder Kaur who is representing the PIO submits that she is not authorized either to certify the copies or to answer the queries regarding the case. Therefore, remaining information should be provided to the complainant within 15 days and PIO is directed to be personally present at the next date of hearing.
It is also pointed out that the Principal, S.D. College for Women in a letter dated 11.09.2008 has given seven days for an explanation from Harjinder Kaur wife of the complainant otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated against her under the rules laid down by the University Calendar. This letter which is attached along with order clearly stems from an attitude of defiance against the directions of the RTI Act, 2005 and Secretary Education should personally look into this matter.

The next date of hearing is 20.04.2009 at 2:00 pm.


Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 04.02.2009

C.C.:-

The Secretary Education (Schools), Punjab, Chandigarh.

Dr Rajinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Rajinder Kaur,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kaputhala.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal S.D.College for
Women, Sultan Pur Lodhi.

….Respondent
C.C. NO. 1253 of 2008

ORDER

Present: - Dr. Rajinder Kaur Complainant in person.
Smt. Vandana Shukla, Principal/PIO, Jain Parkash, Supdtt. and Amit Mehta, Advocate are present.

During the course of proceeding, the counsel for respondent again reiterated that instant case is identical to CC-2361/07 and 2081/07. Both these files have been examined and it has been found that information at point No.1 and 2 are identical which were demanded by Sh. G.S.Sikka in CC-2361/07. It is apparent that the present complainant has complained to Commission for non-supply of such items of information. The respondent is directed to decide her request for information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within a period of fortnight and send its compliance report by 16.01.2009.
To come up for further proceedings on 25.02.2009 at 2:00 P.M.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 15.12.2008

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S.Sikka,
43 Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal S.D.College for
Women, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. G.S.Sikka, Complainant in person.
Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

In the earlier order dated 29.9.2008, the respondent was directed to write to the DPI College, Punjab, Chandigarh for attaining:-
1. “Copy of information regarding approved of DPI (College) Punjab Chandigarh with regard to appointment of present principal.
2. Copies of NOC issued by the College for the last 5 years regarding applying by staff for another post.”
The complainant stated that as indicated in the earlier order of the Commission dated 29.09.2008 the respondent has not supplied a copy of approval to appoint Principal in the Respondent College. On the other hand the Counsel for respondent stated that this letter of approval has not been received from DPI Colleges Punjab, in spite of three letters dated 06.10.2008, 16.10.2008 and 1.11.2008 written to them. It is the duty of respondent to collect the information from the quarter concerned and supply it to the information seeker. However, a copy of the order be sent to the DPI Colleges to ensure that requisite information is supplied to the respondent within one week on onward transmission to the complainant, failing which Commission will be constrained to take action against him under section 8(3) of the RTI Act, 2008.
The next date of hearing is 25.02.2009 at 2:00 pm.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 08.12.2008

C.C.:-

Director Public Instructions (C), Punjab, Chandigarh

Dr Rajinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.


Dr. Rajinder Kaur,
S.D. Cllege for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

…..Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal,
S.D. College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi.

….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1253 of 2008

ORDER

Present: - Sh. G.S. Sikka, on behalf of the Complainant.
Sh. Jain Parkash, Supdt./APIO
Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.


“A letter dated 29.04.1997 which the complainant wants to get is regarding the termination of that employee and existence of this letter that she is still in service as stated by Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate in the court”.

Point 1 and 2 will be supplied to the complainant. Copy of attendance register will be provided. It has also been pointed that this case is identical to CC-2361/07 and 2081/07, which has been heard in the Hon’ble Court of S. Kulbir Singh, SIC. The complainant is directed to file an affidavit at the next date of hearing that this is not an identical case. The respondent is also directed to provide a copy of the original application submitted in these two cases. PIO is directed to personally be present at the next date of hearing.
The next date of hearing is 15.12.2008 at 2:00 P.M.

(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 01.10.2008

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Sh. G.S.Sikka
43 Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal S.D.College
for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi,
Kapurthala.

….Respondent

C.C. NO.679 of 2008

ORDER

Present: -
Sh. G.S.Sikka, Complainant in person.
None on behalf of the Respondent.

In the earlier order dated 20.8.2008, the respondent was directed to supply the information within 15 days to the complainant. It should be put in record that incomplete information has been supplied to the complainant on 17.04.2008 but G.S.Sikka contends this information has only been received by him only on 2.9.2008. During the course of hearing, lot of arguments have taken place and it is directed that the respondent will supply a copy from DPI College Punjab, Chandigarh regarding the approval of the said official to the appointment as an officiating Principal.

2. Statement from the college stating that NOC is required by the college for any applicant who applies for the post in the college.
This information should be provided to the complainant within 15 days and if he is satisfied then the case will be disposed of.
The next date of hearing is 08.12.2008 at 2:00 P.M.
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 29.09.2008

Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o The Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007
Alongwith
CC No. 2081 of 2007

Present:
(i) Sh. G.S.Sikka, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents

ORDER
Heard.

2. The Respondent states that the amount of penalty has been deposited in the Treasury and the compensation has been paid to the Complainant. The receipts are given as proof of payment.
3. Disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 18th August, 2008

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
www.infocommpunjab.com)
Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D. College for women,
, Distt-Kapurthala
……………………………..Respondent


CC No. 2361 of 2007
Alongwith
CC No. 2081 of 2007

ORDER

Arguments in this case were heard on 30.05.08 and the judgment was reserved.
2. In so far as the information, in the instant case, is concerned, it has admittedly been supplied. The only issue which remains to be adjudicated upon is whether penalty under Section 20 RTI Act 2005 is leviable upon the Respondent - PIO and whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation under Section 19 (8) (b)?

3. The Respondent - PIO was given an opportunity to show cause why penalty under Section 20 be not imposed upon him and also why compensation be not awarded to the Complainant under Section 19 (8) (b) vide my order dated 17th April 2008. In response thereto, Smt. Harjinder Kaur, officiating Principal, S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi has submitted an affidavit dated 03.05.08. I have gone through the contents of the affidavit submitted by the officiating Principal and have also perused the records of the case.

4. The application for information was made by Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer in the Respondent college through Sh. G.S.Sikka, Advocate on 22.11.07. Through this application, the Complainant desired to obtain attested copies of the leave applications dated 08.03.06 & 13.03.07 submitted by Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer (English) and attested copy of application / request (October 2002) of Smt. Rajinder Kaur for passing P.hD degree. Sh. G.S.Sikka, Advocate has submitted an affidavit dated 10.05.08 stating that the documents dated 08.03.06 & 13.03.07 were supplied by the Respondent after tempering with the same on 06.02.08. He has submitted that these two documents in original were in possession of the Respondent and that the Respondent has deliberately and wrongly taken the stand that these documents are missing. According to him, the Respondent has even got a false report lodged with the police alleging that the original documents in question have been lost. Sh. G.S.Sikka, Advocate concludes the affidavit by saying that as the Respondent has intentionally destroyed the public documents and later on lodged a false report with the police about the loss of these documents, he should be proceeded against under Sections 166 & 167 IPC. He further states that the Commission may impose exemplary punishment upon the Respondent.

5. The officiating Principal in her affidavit dated 30.05.08 states that the copies of the applications dated 08.03.06 & 13.03.07 were supplied to the Complainant vide Respondent’s letter dated 06.02.08 and that the college maintains the leave applications pertaining to casual leave only for one year. It is also stated that Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer had never submitted any application/ request for pursuing P.hD degree in the month of October 2002 and that she had never requested the college management for issuing no objection to her pursuing P.hD. According to her, Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer wants to take benefit of her own wrong. As per the Respondent Smt. Rajinder Kaur never applied for NOC for pursuing higher studies and it is only after completion of P.hD that she wants to justify her wrongful action by making false averments. The Respondent states that there was no willful and deliberately delay in supplying the information. The delay occurred on account of the fact that the information sought pertains to old records.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the parties hereto and am of the view that the delay caused by the Respondent in supplying the information has been inordinately delayed. The delay is of more than two months, wherefor a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day, can be imposed upon the Respondent under Section 20, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 25,000/-. In the instant case, however, I think that ends of justice will be met by imposing a penalty of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) upon the Respondent - PIO. I order accordingly. This amount of penalty shall be payable by the PIO personally. The D.P.I Colleges, Punjab shall ensure that the amount of fine is recovered from the salary of the Respondent - PIO and deposited in the Treasury under the relevant head. Apart from the imposition of penalty, the Complainant is also entitled to be compensated for the loss and detriment suffered. In the facts and circumstance of the case, a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) is hereby awarded to the Complainant. This amount of compensation shall be paid by the public authority i.e. S.D. College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt-Kapurthala. The amount of compensation be paid to the Complainant within one week of the receipt of this order.

7. Adjourned to 18.08.08 (11.00 AM) for confirmation of compliance. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 6th .June, 2008

Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
www.infocommpunjab.com)
Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D. College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt-Kapurthala

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007
Alongwith
CC No. 2081 of 2007

Present:
(i) Sh. G.S.Sikka, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocated on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent and has filed an affidavit as directed by the Commission.
2. Judgment is reserved.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 30th May, 2008

GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant
Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o Principal,
S.D.College for Women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007
Along with
CC No. 2081 of 2007

Present:
(i) G.S.Sikka, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate, on behalf of the Respondent

Heard.

2. During the last hearing, Respondent was directed to file an affidavit showing cause, why action should not be taken against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for not supplying the information in time and also why the Complainant be not awarded compensation. Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that one more opportunity be granted to him for filing the affidavit.
3. Adjourned to 30.05.2008 (2.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 13th May, 2008

Sh Kuldip Singh versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. Kuldip Singh,
# 63, FCI, Colony,
Near GTB Nagar,
Jalandhar.

…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o. Principal,
S.D .College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2081 of 2007

Present:
(i) G.S.Sikka, for the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocated on behalf of the Respondent
ORDER

Heard.

2. Another connected matter CC-2361/2007 has been heard and adjourned to 13.05.2008. This matter be taken up along with CC-2361/2008.
3. Adjourned to 13.05.08 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties

Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 17th April, 2008

Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH

Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o The Principal,
S.D. College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007

Present:
(i) G.S.Sikka, the Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent

ORDER

Heard.

2. Complainant states that he filed an application for information on 22.11.2007, by registered post for two points and vide letter no. SDC/ 16995/08 dated 06.02.2008, he was provided information for item one of his application and for item two of his application he has been informed by the Respondent vide letter no. SDC/17008/08 dated 18.02.2008, that the same is not available in their record. He further states that he has been provided with misleading information as the Respondent supplied different information on the same point to Sh. KUldip Singh, complainant in CC-2081/2007 and at his request both the complaints have been clubbed. He prayed, that as the Respondent intentionally delayed in supply of the information and further supplied misleading and incorrect information, therefore, penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, is required to be imposed. As due to illegal acts of the Respondent, the Complainant has been forced to file this complaint; he should be compensated for his visit to Chandigarh.

3. In order to verify the facts, Commission directed the Respondent to produce the original record but the Respondent states that the same has gone missing from the college and DDR has been lodged with the Police Station, Sultanpur, Lodhi.

4. PIO is directed to show cause, by filing an affidavit on the next date of hearing, why action should not be taken against him under Section 20 of the RTI ACT, 2005 for not supplying the information in time and also why the Complainant be not awarded compensation.

5. Adjourned to 13.05.08 (11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 17th April, 2008

Sh GS Sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/O 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o the Principal,
SD-College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007

Present:
(i) Sh. G.S.Sikka, Complainant
(ii) Sh. Amit Mehta on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER
Heard.

2. During the last hearing, Respondent was directed to bring the original leave application dated 08.03.2006 and dispatch register for the period of October and November 2002. AT today’s, hearing Respondent states that the original application is not available in their record and D.D.R in this connection has been lodged. Copy of the same has been taken on record. As regards dispatch register/receipt register, Complainant wants to see now the receipts register. Accordingly, Respondent was directed to bring the receipt register/dispatch register on the next date of hearing for the period of October to December 2002. Complainant states that incomplete information has been supplied by the Respondent and action should be taken against him. Complainant also states that similar application that is CC-2081 is pending before the Commission and has requested that both these cases may be clubbed and decided together.

3. Adjourned to 17.04.08 (12.00 PM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 18th March, 2008

Sh GS sikka versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector -17-C, CHANDIGARH
Sh. G.S.Sikka,
R/o 43, Friends Colony,
Model Gram, Ludhiana.
…………………………….Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer
O/o the Principal,
S-D College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi,
Distt-Kapurthala.

……………………………..Respondent

CC No. 2361 of 2007

Present:
(i) G.S. Sikka, Complainant.
(ii)Sh. Amit Mehta on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDER

Heard.
2. Complainant states that incorrect information has been supplied to him for item no. 1 and no information has been supplied to him relating to item No.2 of his application for information. In order to verify the statement of the Complainant, Respondent is directed to bring the original leave applications dated 08.03.06 and 13.03.07 of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer in English. Sh. Amit Mehta, for the Respondent states that no application/request of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Lecturer in English for passing Phd degree made in October 2002 is available in their record. The Complainant states that he has been granted permission on the said application. To prove it, he has asked that the dispatch register of October and November 2002 may be shown to him. Respondent is directed to bring the said dispatch register on the next date of hearing.
3. Adjourned to 18.03.08 (10.30 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties
Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 29thFebruary,2008

Dr Rajinder Kaur versus SD College for Women Sultanpur Lodhi

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB.
SCO NO. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

Dr. Rajinder Kaur,
S.D. College for women,
Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala.
…..Complainant

Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Principal, S.D. College for
Women, Sultanpur Lodhi.
….Respondent

C.C. NO. 1253 of 2008
ORDER

Present: -
Sh. G.S. Sikka, Advocate on behalf of the Complainant.
Sh. Amit Mehta, Advocate and Jain Parkash, Supdt. on behalf of the Respondent.

In the earlier order dated 15.12.2008 it was found that information on point No. 1 and 2 are identical as in case No. CC-2361/2007, therefore, only point no. 3 and 4 are to be supplied. Today the respondent submits that letter No. SDC/MC/150/97 dated 29.04.1997 is not available in the record of the College. Neither he nor the superintendent present can explain as to why this letter with diary number is not available. Therefore, PIO Mrs. Vandana is directed to appear personally to explain the stand, otherwise show cause notice will be issued to her for not providing the information to the complainant.
The next date of hearing will be in the Chambers on 22.04.2009 at 12:00 noon.

Sd/-
(Mrs. Ravi Singh)
State Information Commissioner.
Chandigarh
Dated 25.02.2009




Some other Colleges in Punjab
SD College of Education, Barnala
SD College Campus
Barnala (District Barnala)
Punjab
Chandigarh Engineering College (CEC), Landran
Near Chandigarh
Landran (District Mohali)
Punjab
PTU Centre, Bhikhi

Bhikhi (District Mansa)
Punjab
Summary: SD College for Women, Sultanpur Lodhi Punjab website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.

© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer