PARTHA SARKAR
03 February 2012 at 10:18
Sir,
Seeking advise as per letter of commission on the following ground:
1. RTI petition received on 25.01.2011
2. Hearing on 06.09.2011.
3. SDO has submitted a report dated 12.08.2011 after receiving of hearing notice.
4. SDO stated that record not treaceable.
5. Commission Directed SDO to search record vigoriosly and firnish information to the petitioner within 30 days. Date od order 12.09.2011.
Till date no response from the SDO.
Still I have not received any information from the said SDO. As per section 23 of RTI Act I can not challenge the order of SIC but can appeal against order.
I do not know how to appeal against SIC order. Moreover 3 petitions already have submitted u/s 18(1) of the act and 4 reminder letters.
Kindly advise me appeal format and procedure. As no guide line are present at SIC site.
Regards
Partha Sarkar
Attachment not accepting there copy paste details below- Letter of commission:-
WEST BENGAL INFORMATION COMMISSIOI\
Bhabani Bhaban, znd Floor, Alipore
Kolkata-700 027
Te I efax (03 3)247 9 - I I 6 6
Website : wwrv.rrybjo,gov.ig
E-mail : scic-rvb@nic.in
No.31l9_WBICIR.IItZ63lt DATE: 1s.12.20I1
From: The Deputy Secretary & Addl. Registrar,
West Bengal Information Commission
To: The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Balurghat (Sadar),
Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Balurghat (Sadar),
Dist. - Dakshin DinajPur.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Commission's Order No. 2266(3)-WB{C/RTI1263111
dated 12.09.2A11. It appears that no information has been furnished to the applicant as
directed by the Commission in the above mentioned Order. You are requested to furnish
specific replies with regard to item No. 1, 2,3 & 4 of the RTI application to the applicant
within 7 days fiorn the date of receipt of this letter with a copy of the Commission.
Yours faithf-u1ly,
sd/-
Deputy Secretary & Addl. Registrar
West Bengal Information Comm ission
No. 3 1 1 9/1 (1 )-WBIC/RT[|263 t tl
//
DATE: 15.12.2011
VroO, forwarded for information to Shri Partha Sarkar, Shivam Apaftment, 8/844,
Netaji Nagar, Flat No. 7, 1" Floor, P.O. - Jadavpur, Kolkata -700 092.
ftJr.
Nalin Nisarta
02 February 2012 at 21:29
Sir,
I M Class-2 officer at Gujarat State Secretriate.(not in heads of department)
which is the highest administrative authority of the State...
Now, my say is that..i m going to make my own visiting card as a officer...
can i use a national emblem on my visiting card..?
Pratik
02 February 2012 at 02:23
A person has been charged under Prevention of Corruption Act and has been convicted by session court.
He appeals in High Court and a day after that he files a mercy petition to governor.
Can he do so? Is it an offence?
JEGADEESAN
01 February 2012 at 20:31
Dear Sir,
I wish to clarify a doubt regarding citizenship.
i.e.
1.Whether Dual Citizenship is allowed in India for a Indian Origin now settled in abroad?
2.Whether Dual Citizenship is allowed if a foreigner(assume an american)permanently stayed in India?
Regards,
S.Jegadeesan.
Gulshan Tanwar
31 January 2012 at 16:09
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI; C.K. THAKKER, J. & R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
Writ Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985
Date of Decision: 29.09.2009
M.C. MEHTA......................PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.......................RESPONDENT
I.A. NO. 1970 IN I.A. NO. 22
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4677 OF 1985
[With W.P. (C) Nos. 263, 264, 266, 450, 464 & 470 of 2006, I.A. Nos.
3-6, 8-12, 15-16, 18-22 in W.P. (C) No. 263 of 2006, I.A. No. 17 in I.A.
Nos. 5-6 in W.P. (C) NO. 263 of 2006 AND I.A. Nos. 1926-27, 1928-29,
1948, 1949, 1961, 1969, 1971-72, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977-78, & 1973
IN I.A. 22 IN W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985]
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI.
The city of Delhi is an example of a classical case, which, for the last number of years, has been a witness of flagrant violations of municipal laws, town planning laws and norms, master plan and
environmental laws. It is borne out from various orders and judgments passed by this court and Delhi High Court, whether in a case of shifting of hazardous and polluting industries or providing cleaner fuel (CNG) or encroachment of public land and streets or massive unauthorized
construction and misuser of properties. It is a common knowledge that these illegal activities are also one of the main sources of corruption.
The issue of commercial use of residential premises was decided by this Court by judgment dated 16th February, 2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 399. While reversing a
Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the stand of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was accepted and it was held that the Commissioner of MCD is empowered to exercise power of sealing in case of misuse of any premises. The judgment also noted certain individual cases as also
other residential properties being illegally used for commercial purposes.
Besides noting orders passed by this Court, from time to time, in the
last so many years which had no effect on the authorities, reference was also made to some of the orders passed by the High Court in last about 15 years. There was, however, no implementation. It was also
observed that such large scale misuser cannot take place without the connivance of the officers who will have to show as to what effective steps were taken to stop the misuser but the issue of accountability of officers would be taken up after misuser is stopped at least on main roads. The misuser activities included big furnishing stores, galleries,
sale of diamond and gold jewellery, sale of cars etc. While issuing directions for implementation of laws, it was noted that if the entire misuser cannot be stopped, at one point of time because of its extensive nature, a beginning has to be made in a phased manner by first taking
sealing action against major violators. The cases of small shops opened in residential houses for catering day-to-day basic needs were left out for the present.
Thus, the plea of M.C.D. that it has power to seal premises in case of misuser having been accepted, various directions were issued. The directions included giving of wide publicity for stoppage of misuser by
the violators on their own and the commencement of sealing process if
the misuser is not stopped. The sealing process in a phased manner was to commence on 29th March, 2006. On 24th March, 2006, considering the prayer of the traders, time to stop misuser was extended upto 30th June, 2006 subject to persons
claiming benefit of extended time filing affidavit stating that (i) on or before
30th June, 2006, misuser shall be stopped and no further extension on any ground whatsoever shall be asked for, and (ii) giving an undertaking to the effect that violation of condition of not stopping the misuser by 30th June, 2006 would subject him/her to offence of perjury and contempt
of court for violation of the order of the court. It was further directed that
premises in respect of which affidavits are not filed the process of sealing
shall commence with effect from 29th March, 2006. A Monitoring Committee was also appointed to oversee the implementation of the law, namely, sealing of the offending premises in letter and spirit of the court’s directions. However, on 28th March, 2006, a Notification was issued by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) modifying Master Plan insofar as the chapter on mixed use is concerned.
The Union of India filed I.A. No.1931, inter alia, praying that the local
bodies be directed to complete the exercise of identification of mixed use of roads/streets in residential areas within a period of six months. An order was, therefore, passed on 28th April, 2006 permitting the Government to place detailed facts before the Monitoring Committee to find out if it is possible to give some relief to the traders. It was directed that the Monitoring Committee will examine the facts broadly from prima
facie point of view to assist the Court and report if, in its view, some relief in regard to the ongoing sealing can be given in respect of some of the areas temporarily till the exercise as contemplated in the application was complete. The Monitoring Committee heard all concerned including Secretary of the Urban Development Ministry of Government of India and examined the matter and filed its report on 4th May, 2006. When the
Application along with the report of the Monitoring Committee came up for consideration before this Court, the same was withdrawn by the Government of India on 11th May, 2006. On 12th May, 2006, the Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Bill, 2006 was passed by Lok Sabha; Rajya Sabha passed it on 15th May, 2006 and on
receipt of assent of the President on 19th May, 2006, it was notified the same day.
On 20th May, 2006, the Government of India issued a Notification placing a moratorium for a period of one year in respect of all notices issued by local authorities in respect of categories of unauthorized
development. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (22 of 2006), the Central Government directed local authorities to give effect to provisions of the said Act, namely,
1) the premises sealed by any local authority in pursuance of a judgment, order or decree of any court after the 1st day of January, 2006, shall be eligible to be restored, for a period of one year, with effect from 19th day of May, 2006, to the position as was obtaining as on 1st day of January, 2006.
2) All commercial establishments which are required to cease carrying out commercial activities at their premises by the 30th
day of June, 2006, may continue such activities, as they were being carried out on the 1st day of January, 2006 for a period of one year, with effect from 19th day of May, 2006.
By the aforesaid Act and the notice dated 20th May, 2006, the Government purported to relieve the persons of the undertaking though given to this Court and also purported to issue directions for removal of seals though placed on the premises under the order of this Court.
On writ petitions being filed to declare the aforesaid Act unconstitutional, on 23rd May, 2006, notices returnable for 17th July, 2006 were directed to be issued to the respondents in the writ petition as well as on the Applications for stay. The matters were, however, taken up on
1st August, 2006, when the writ petitions were admitted and rule issued by the Court noting that serious challenge had been made to the constitutional validity of the Act.
The stay applications were considered on 10th August, 2001. In support of plea for grant of stay, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that it is a unique statute which overrules, annuls and sets
aside the decision of this Court dated 16th February, 2006 and other orders passed thereafter. In terms of Order made on 10th August, 2006 while not granting the complete stay of the impugned legislation, the aforenoted two directions were stayed. Considering, however, that those who had given undertaking may have been misled by directions contained
in the notice dated 20th May, 2006, time to comply the same was extended upto 15th September, 2006. It was further directed that premises desealed pursuant to notice dated 20th May, 2006 shall have to be again
sealed with effect from 16th September, 2006 in case misuser is not stopped by 15th September, 2006. Certain other directions were also issued on 10th August, 2006. After this Order, the Government withdrew the public notice that had been issued on 20th May, 2006 in respect of the undertakings and the premises that were sealed by the Court.
We may further note that on 21st July, 2006, public notices were issued by DDA in exercise of power under Section 11-A of Delhi Development Act stating that it proposed further modifications in the
Master Plan and inviting objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice, namely, 23rd July, 2006.
The aforesaid public notice was in respect of mixed use policy.
Another public notice was also issued on the same date inviting objections to the proposal for regularization of constructions carried out in excess of the norms laid down by the notification dated 23rd July, 1998. According to the Government, public hearings on the aforesaid notice were conducted between 23rd August, 2006 and 3rd September,
2006. DDA recommended the amendment of the Master Plan on 5th September, 2006. The Master Plan was accordingly amended. On 7th
September, 2006 and on 15th September, 2006 about 2002 patches/ streets were notified for mixed use.
The constitutional validity of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 is under challenge on various grounds in W.P.(C) Nos.450, 464 and 470/2006. The challenge deserves to be examined in depth and, therefore, in these writ petitions, we issue Rule. Counter affidavit shall
be filed by respondents within 4 weeks. The respondents are further directed to place before this Court material which was taken into consideration for arriving at the decision leading to the amendment of
the Master Plan in terms of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006
and the consequential Notification dated 15th September, 2006.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, senior advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae and other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also petitioners appearing in person seek stay of the impugned Notification dated 7th September, 2006. The Government, on the other hand, seeks
modification of Order dated 10th August, 2006 in the light of the said Notification. In the writ petition of Mr.Omesh Sehgal, a former Chief
Secretary of Delhi, one of the pleas raised is that inviting objections and
grant of hearing was a farce since decision had already been made to amend Master Plan even before inviting objections and the hearing was a mere formality and further the modification of an already expired Master Plan is not permissible. It has been further submitted that if any interim relief is to be granted, it should be confined only to small shops. The small shops are presently protected as noted in the M.C.Mehta
(supra). Further, the Monitoring Committee classifying shops measuring
20 sq. meters as ’small shops’ has recommended that the said shops
be exempted from the purview of sealing operation in the residential areas. According to the Reports dated 14th September, 2006 and 27th September, 2006 of the Monitoring Committee, the shops falling in the category of small shops trading in the following items may be allowed in residential areas :
i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers;
ii. Bakery items/confectionary items;
iii. Kirana/General stores;
iv. Dairy products;
v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding;
vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO;
vii. Cyber cafi/Call phone booths;
viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders;
ix. Atta chakki;
x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop;
xi. Pan shop;
xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour;
xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing;
xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements;
xv. Chemist shops;
xvi. Optical shops;
xvii. Tailoring shops;
xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and
xix. Photo studio
xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations
xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops
xxii. ATM
In the report dated 14th September, 2006, the Monitoring Committee has also noted about the survey conducted by MCD on 185 notified roads to find out nature of activities of the commercial establishments
on those roads. Broadly the activities of commercial establishments on these roads are of automobile showrooms; automobile workshops; branded showrooms; call centers; coaching institutes; business offices; building materials; godowns; tent houses; guest houses; jewellery shops;
restaurants and iron & steel shops.
At this stage, the question to be considered is whether pending the
decision of the writ petitions, should this Court modify Order dated 10th
August, 2006 and decline prayer for stay of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 or decline modification of the Order and stay the Notification or pass any other order having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the entire situation. We have heard extensive submissions made by learned counsel. Many of persons, who gave undertakings to remove the misuser by
30th June, 2006 have filed separate applications in view of the Notification
dated 7th September, 2006 and in substance sought to be relieved of the undertakings so that they could continue commercial user. Likewise, those whose premises were sealed also seek issue of directions for the opening of the seals.
The sealing was to commence on 29th March, 2006. However, in view of the undertakings, misuser was allowed to be continued upto 30th June, 2006. Despite the undertakings, the misuser has continued till date, as noted herein before. There cannot be any doubt that the Legislature would lack competence to extend the time granted by this Court in the purported exercise of law making power. That would be virtually exercising judicial functions. Such functions do not vest in the Legislature. In fact, those who gave undertakings are already in breach
of the undertakings by not stopping misuser by 30th June, 2006. The dignity and authority of the Court has to be protected not for any individual but for maintenance of the rule of law. The fact that those who gave undertakings may have been misled in view of subsequent developments can only be a mitigating factor while considering the action to be taken for breach of the undertakings.
Further, there are no equities in favour of those who gave undertakings to this Court and obtained the benefit of time otherwise their premises could have been sealed on 29th March, 2006 or soon thereafter. The nature of trade conducted by most of them who gave undertakings has
been noted above. There is serious challenge to the validity of the Act
and the Notification. Pending determination thereof, such persons cannot
be allowed to claim any benefit of the Notification. In the background of the above facts and having considered the
submissions made, we issue the following directions :
(i) Re : Premises relating to which undertakings were given The commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31st October, 2006.
(ii) Re : Small Shops Small Shops, i.e., measuring not more than 20 sq. mts. in
residential areas are allowed trading in the following items:
i. Vegetables/fruits/flowers;
ii. Bakery items/confectionary items;
iii. Kirana/General stores;
iv. Dairy products;
v. Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding;
vi. Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO;
vii. Cyber cafi/Call phone booths;
viii. LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders;
ix. Atta chakki;
x. Meat/Poultry and Fish shop;
xi. Pan shop;
xii. Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour;
xiii. Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing;
xiv. Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements;
xv. Chemist shops;
xvi. Optical shops;
xvii. Tailoring shops;
xviii. Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and
xix. Photo studio
xx. Cable TV/DTH Operations
xxi. Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops
xxii. ATM
(iii) Re : Other premises for which protection is extended by Notification dt. 7.9.2006 Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with 15th
September, 2006, we direct that the said premises may not be sealed pending decision of these petitions on undertakings
being filed before the Monitoring Committee on or before 10th November, 2006 that misuser shall be stopped as per the
directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated and/or the Notification is quashed. Further, the undertakings shall state that the trade is being conducted in respect of the permissible items and only in that part of the premises in which commercial activity is now permitted as per the impugned Notification dated
7th September, 2006 read with Notification dated 15th September, 2006, viz. if commercial activity has been made
permissible on the ground floor, the affidavit shall state that it is being carried out only in the ground floor and not on the other floors and in support a certificate of the registered Architect
shall be annexed. Any Architect giving wrong certificate would subject himself to appropriate action including cancellation of certificate to carry on the profession of Architect.
iv) Re : Premises for which protection is not extended by Notification dated 7.9.2006
In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September,
2006, the sealing process will continue in terms of the Order dated 16th February, 2006 and 10th August, 2006. The direction
of sealing premises will also apply to specific properties mentioned in the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 and in
the Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th September, 2006. The sealing would be done in a systemic manner as per
directions of Monitoring Committee and not in a haphazard manner. There shall be no misuser of public land or public
street. The authorities shall ensure that the Roads, Public Streets and pathways meant for public is kept free for their use
and the commercial activity is not extended thereupon. The commercial user in contravention of judgment in M.C. Mehta’s
case (supra), order dated 10th August, 2006 and Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 subject to what is stated in this order shall be liable to be sealed.
(v) General Directions :
(a) We direct that the owner/occupier of small shops and also others who have been permitted to continue and not stop commercial activity for the present, under this order shall get themselves registered upto 31st December, 2006.
(b) In respect of the premises which have been sealed under the orders of this Court, we permit them to approach the
Monitoring Committee which will consider each case on its merit and make appropriate report to this Court on
consideration whereof necessary directions may be issued.
c) The respondents are restrained from issuing any other Notification for conversion of residential user into
commercial user except with the leave of this Court.
(d) We also hope that without any further loss of time the Government and the concerned authorities, instead of
ad hoc measures like the present, would now undertake proper planning keeping into consideration all relevant factors including the interests of those residents which may not have any voice.
(e) Before concluding, we may note the grievance placed before us on behalf of professionals including Doctors, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants and Architects in respect of the Notification dated 7th September, 2006. Relying upon notifications dated 27th November, 1998 and 7th June, 2000 and Press Release dated 27th November, 1998, they say that restrictions sought to put in the
Notification dated 7th September, 2006 were not there earlier and may be restrictions have been put by
inadvertence. Mrs. Indira Jaisingh, appearing for Government of India says that she will have it examined
by the Government and, if required, necessary correction will be made.
The Common Cause Society is permitted to intervene in the matter.
The Interlocutory Application Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 12, 15-16, 18 to 22 in Writ
Petition (C) No. 263 of 2006, I.A. No. 17 in I.A. Nos. 5-6 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 263 of 2006 and I.A. Nos. 1970, 1926-27, 1928-29, 1948, 1949,
1961, 1969, 1971- 72, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977-78 and 1973 in I.A. No.
22 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 are disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid order. List the matters in the month of November 2006 for
further directions.
Anonymous
31 January 2012 at 13:53
Dear Experts,
This query is related with the recent Supreme Court observation that sanction by a competent authority for the prosecution of a public servant has to be granted within a time frame. The sanction would be deemed to be granted if competent authority failed to take a decision within four months. The court said that the right to file a complaint against a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act is a constitutional right. It can be read at http://ibnlive.in.com/news/2g-sc-accepts-swamys-plea-against-pmo/225789-37-64.html
1) Can this observation be taken as law laid down by Supreme Court under Article 141 of Constitution?
2) What is the name or number of this case so that Supreme Court website can be searched to read this decision?
Anonymous
26 January 2012 at 19:30
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc
( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself
Dear Experts Can a High Court Exercise article 142 of Constitution, or the power of 142 is only for the Supreme Court?
Thanks in Advance.
Sanjeev Kumar
24 January 2012 at 23:34
Dear sir, my query is that can a practising advocate contest elections such as the coming BMC elections 2012. And does the advocate would require to surrender his/ her Sanat with the Bar Council & cease or discontinue with his/her Legal Practice... what would be the process to be followed by an Advocate to contest the BMC elections 2012... Please advise
Anonymous
24 January 2012 at 20:01
In the various Departments of Govt. of India, promotions are delayed for very long periods. The DPCs are not held as per the Model Calender given by DOPT. Can one seek a legal remedy from Courts if the Promotions are delayed for a very long period without any reasons. Can there be a legal solutions to seek directions from the Court to the Department for holding timely DPCs.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Kindly advise me on divisional commissioner's report to expose sc certificate fraud
Sir,
Kindly advice on the following development cited below as attachment not accepting due to technical problems: I am trying hard to expose the fraud but not getting success. Everything has fixed up in secretary level by the said the DM, SDO. WB State Vigilance Commission’s enquiry also under closure recommendation due to DM’s report though I have forwarded them below mentioned Divisional Commissioner’s report.
Kindly advise my next course of action as per following reports (obtain through RTI) to get at the truth. The exact report cite below:
“GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
JALPAIGURI DIVISION
JALPAIGURI
Memo No. 369/ADM Dated Jalpaiguri, the 13the December, 2011
From : Commissioner
Jalpaiguri Division
Jalpaiguri.
To
The Assistant Secretary & S.P'l'O.,
Chief Minister's Office,
Writers' Buildings,
Kolkata - 700 001.
Sub: Information sought for under RTI Act., 2005 by Shri Partha Sarkar of Nataji Nagar, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata- 700 092.
Ref: Your No. 1009-CMO dated 16/08/2O11.
Sir,
1. S.D.O., Balurghat has issued a scheduled caste (Jalia Kaibarta) to Smt. Alpana Das on 07/08/1997 (Copy enclosed)'.
2. I have seen the petitions and documentary evidence submitted by Shri Partha
Sarkar, the complainant.
3. The points in favour of Smt. Alpana Das are –
a) It has been issued by S.D.O., Balurghat on 07/0811997 (Copy enclosed).
b) His brother Shri Nishith Ranjan Das has also got Scheduled Caste Certificate from S.D.O., Balurghat on the same date.
c) She got appointment as C.D.P.O. out of scheduled caste quota in 2002 and her brother has also been appointed as a primary school teacher in Balurghat out of scheduled caste quota. She is working as C.D.P.O., Kumarganj' Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat.
d) Her father, Shri Nirod Ran'ian Das was also issued Scheduled Caste Certificate by A D M ' Balurghat on 25/03/1969 (Copy enclosed).
e) S.D.O., Balurghat has recently caused a field inquiry and has taken declaration from a few persons that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. It has been forwarded to me by D M, Balurghat (Copy enclosed).
4. The points not in favour of Smt' Alpana Das are –
a) Shri Partha Sarkar, Complainant is her husband and he has mentioned that he belongs to 'Mahishya' community which falls under general category. He has further stated that he married to Smt Alpana Das after necessary inquiry about her general caste. This is vital evidence.
b) Case records of 1997 of S.D.O., Balurghat office is not available. Hence, the
basis of issuance of Scheduled Caste Certificate is not ascertained.
Counter file of A.D.M., Balurghat certificate in favour of his father also could not be found. Hence, the authenticity and basis of issuance of the certificate is not ascertained.
c) 2 letters, Memo No 57 dated 14tO112011 and Memo So 268 dated 04/03/2011 (copy enclosed) of Assistant Director of Agriculture (Admn), Raiganj wherein it is mentioned that there is no marking of Scheduled Caste category in his Service Book or in his promotional orders. I am also enclosing gradation list in which he has not been mentioned as Scheduled Caste while SC/ST is mentioned against many other names. Though his father's S.C. Certificate is a proof but as he did not mention it in his service tenure 0/02/1966 to 3l/01/2006 hence this certificate may not be conclusively relied upon.
d) Her father was first settled at village Dakra' P S Balurghat from Bangladesh. Nothing came out because only one Das family was there and it is they. They Shifted to Hazipur around 1974 which is 2/3 k.m. from Balurghat town. On secret inquiry, it revealed that they did not belong to S C. It has been also found that none of them has seen them adopting/adopted the custom of ‘JaliaKaibarta’ community i.e. fisherman.
5. Therefore, there remains some doubt about the caste status of Smt. Alpana Das. In view of the above stated facts, it will be appropriate if the S.D.O., Balurghat deals this matter as per section 9 of WB S.C. & S.T. (Identification) Act., 1994 and Rule 3 of WB S.C. & S.T. (Identification) Rule, 1995 so that either the certificate is confirmed or cancelled. I am advising S.D.O., Balurghat to proceed accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
(A.K. Singh)
Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division
12.12.201l
Encls : As stated.”
“GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTR^TE
DAKSHIN DINAJPUR: BALURGHAT.
Memo No. 1622/G/2011 Dated Balurghat the 18the October, 2011
From : The District Magistrate,
Dakshin Dinajpur Balurghat.
To
The Divisional Commissioner,
Jalpaiguri Division,
Jalpaiguri.
.
Sub: Scheduled caste certificate of one Smt. Alpana Das issued from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar); Balurghat.
Ref : Your No. 276 / ADM, dated 6th September, 2011.
Sir,
This is for your kind information that the petitioner AShri Partha Sarkar of Shivam Apartment, 8 / 84A' Netaji Nagar, Jadavpur, Kolkata sought information under the R.T.l. Act, 2005 on several occasions and at different level, on this particular issue and replies were furnished from time to time.
His contention is that Smt- Atpana Das, daughter of Lt. Nirad Ranjan Das of vill. - Hazipur, P.S. - Baturghat, Dist. - Dakshin Dinajpur was issued a Scheduled Caste Certificate by the Sub-Divisional officer, Balurghat wrongly and based on wrong premises (Vide his petition at page -2, para - 3: "the certificate may be original but the candidate and the documents, she produced to get the S.C. certificate is not legal perhaps"). The point he raises is that her father Lt. Nirad Ranjan Das obtained a Certificate from the A.D.M., West Dinajpur, Balurghat in March, 1969 but he did not record his status of being scheduled caste in the Service Book, although he was a stale Government Employee and retired from the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Raiganj Sub-Division Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. On this point he raises question that her father is not a member of-scheduled caste community. Her father died a few years back. This cannot be verified now, nor this argument is logical.
It is a fact hat the certificate was issued to Smt. Alpana Das by the Sub-Divisional ofiicer, Balurghat and it is also a fact that serious attempts were taken to find out the case record on the basis of which the certificate was issued- The case records could not be traced as yet, mainly because of the fact that due to shifting of the office on a number of occasions the case records were shifted from one place to another and as a result' this might have been misplaced. Even, if it is not available but it can safely be presumed that Smt. Alpana Das got her certificate on the basis of S.C. certificate obtained by her father. Recently I got this matter enquired into the field where her neighbors also recognized her as member of scheduled caste belonging to "Jalia Kaibarta" community. So, even if the case records are not available, Smt. Das is entitled to receive such certificate as on date. Her entitlement to get such S.C. Certificate cannot-be denied just on the ground that her father did not record his caste status in his service Book. A copy of letter no. 1426 / SDO, dated 26.9.2011 as received from Sub-Divisional officer; Baturghat (Sadar) containing the details of enquiry report is enclosed.
No punitive steps have been taken against any ernployees of this office, because it is difficult to ascertain as to who was / is responsible for misplacement of the case record in respect of Smt. Alpana Das. In this regard I am enclosing herewith a copy of letter No. 860-MD(V)/MD/O/1E(V)-07/09 Pt-I, dated 8th September, 2011 received from the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Minority Affairs & Madrasah Education. From the order of the Hon,ble High Courtof Bombay at Goa, it appears that justifications (for taking or not taking any action) are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
This is for your-kind information.
Yours faithfully,
18.01.2011
District Magistrate,
Dakshin Dinajpur, Baturghat.
Enclo: 10 (ten) pages.”
“GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
BATURGHAT (SADAR), DAKSHIN DINAJPUR.
.
Memo No. 1426/SDO Date: 26.09.2011
From : Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar), Dakshin Dinajpur.
To
The District Magistrate,
Dakshin Dinajpur.
Sub: Submision of a filed enquiry report regarding the caste status of Alpana Das presently CDPO, Kumarganj.
Ref: Note sheet order.
Sir,
With reference to the above order I along with Inspector BCW, Balurghat Block performed a field enquiry of the villege Hazipur under P.O. – Beltala Park, P.S. – Balurghat.
But before going into the details of our finding I would like to draw your attention to my earlier report submitted in this regard vide memo no 1240/SDO dt. 12.08.2011 in which the copy submitted to you succinctly delineates my findings and an attempt to give a parawise feedback to the objections as raised by Partha Sarkar and forwarded by the RTI Commission. I am enclosing this report for you perusal agaisn as Annexure – A in this report it has been stated that her father was an SC certificate holder and probably on the basis of this certificate the then SDO had given certificate to both Alpana Das and her brother who is now working under DPSC, Dakshin Dinajpur.
Now as per our hearing at the Bhabani Bhavan, RTI Commission we represented our view but the RTI Commission has given 30 days time to trace the records and submit a feedback to the paras mentioned in the objection.
The feedback have been received that in spite of all effort mainly due to shifting of office and due to such long span of time elapsed already I it is not possible to trace the document. However the counterfoil of the certificate and register of issue have been traced which certifies that an SC certificate was issued against her name.
Finally come to our joint field enquiry report with the Inspector BCW of Balurghat Block. We had visited the house in the village - Hazipur under P.S. Balurghat and found upon enquiry that her father belonged to the SC family and obviously she and her brother too.
A declaration of five persons of the village - Hazipur duly authenticated by Inspector BCW, Balurghat is submitted as Annexure - B. However in some family due to lack of presence of the family Head they did not sign in the declaration.
All these findings summarily leads us to the conclusive proof that since her father is dead now and since people in the habitation is giving declaration in favour of his
Belonging to the SC Community (Annexure - B).
There is no justification in raising questions as to the veracity of the method employed by the then ADM (G), Dakshin Dinajpur in issuing an SC Certificate in his favour.
Rather this summarily leads us to a conclusion that there is obvious malafide intention to put the Government mechanism of function into question. The veracity of ADM (G)’s method of checking is overtly proved by this declaration submitted by the people of the village. And the people with malafide intention should be overruled as per the provision of law.
The enquiry report along with two Annexures are submitted for necessary perusal.
Enclo: Annexure-A and
Annexure -B.
Yours faithfully
Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar).
Date:- 26-O9-2011.|
Copy forwarded to :-
l) Addl. District Magistrate (G), Dakshin
Sub-Divi s-ional O fficer,
Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar).”
“GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
BATURGHAT (SADAR), DAKSHIN DINAJPUR.
.
Memo No. 1240/SDO Date: 12.08.2011
From : Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar), Dakshin Dinajpur.
To
The Deputy Secretary & Addl. Registrar,
West Bengal Information Commission.
Bhabani Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Alipore,
Kolkata – 700027.
Sub: Report with relevant Annexure to the complaint raised by Partha Sarkar regarding the caste certificate issued in favour of Alpana Das,
CDPO Kumarganj under the purview of RTI Act 2OO5.
Ref: Your memo no. 1718 (2)-WBIC/RTI/ 263/11 dt. 18-07-2011.
Sir, ,
With reference to your above memo which is actually a "Notice of Hearing”, issued by you for my personal presence regarding an objection raised by Partha Sarkar of Kolkata against Alpana Das presently CDPO, Kumarganj under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005' I am submitted herewith a detailed enquiry report incorporating my comments along with relevant documents.
At the outset it is to inform you that upon receipt of the forwarding (vide memo no.
251/Gen dt. 01-O2-2O11) S.I.P.O., Dakshin Dinajpur who intact communicated it after receipt of the complaint from Partha Sarkar, we sent a reply vide memo. No. 281/SDO (S) dt. 07-03-2011 in which we confirmed the fact that in fact she (Alpana Das) was issued an SC certificate from Sub-Divisional-Officer, Balurghat S1. No. 26599, sub-caste being - Jalia kaibarta. But since case records could not be traced immediately, so detailed pointed reply to his complaint could not be made instantly. However to comply the one month time restriction we confirmed the fact of issuance of certificate.
Now after investigation the following things are found.
1. Her father Nirad Ranjan Das is a certificate holder (Annexure -I) issued by Aditional district Magistrate, West Dinajpur. The period of issuance as is evident from he certificate is 25/03169. But her father since has died five years after retirement on 03-01.-2006. So it is not possible to ascertain why he is mentioned as General Category employee when he retired. As per deposition from both Alpana Das, CDPO and her brother Nisith Ranjan Das most probably when he joined in the service way back in the decade of sixties this facility of Reservation in job was not yet in vogue.
2. Documents which may lead to her issuance of certificates is not readily available since the file could not be traced. However asking her through special communication or to appear before you the same may be ensured which led to the issuance of certificates by Addl. District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional officer previously.
3. In response to his complaint no. - 3 he may be advised that SC/ST Reservation Act is too prevalent to be not known to anybody. However probably his indication in this point is get clarification about the reference of her sub-caste drawn while issuance by Sub-Divisional officer- Though in spite of all our effort the original case record could not be traced due to such a lengthy period being clasped already causing damage to the documents but as pointed out in no. - (1) her father,s certificate was most probably the reference.
Again in relation to this it is further commented that along with Alpana Das her brother Nisith Ranjan Das was also issued a certificate from sub-Divisional officer, Balurghat (Sl. No' - 26598 attached as Annexure – II). This brother of her is at present working as Primary Teacher under the Dakshin Dinajpur primary school council. As per his deposition he is at present working under Kushmandi circle, name of the school being Rasulpur F.P. School. Copy of her brother's appointment letter issued vide memo no' 1575 (3708) dated 1st Feb - 2010 by chairman, DPSC, Dakshin Dinajpur is enclosed as Annexure - III.
4. Regarding officers who were responsible for issuing these certificate, it can be commented that though the documentary evidence in support is not available but from verbal enquiry it is knows that the Additional District Magistrate who issued the certificate to the father on 25.03.1969 was A. Basu and the Sub-Divisional who issued the certificate to Alpana Das and her brother is Madan Mohan Paul. However these can easily be cross checked from the submitted Annexured by the PAR Department.
5. Finally I do not think that there was any intention or motive in action while issuing those certificate in between such a wide temporal gap of just less than three decades. At least the intention a motive, if any, is not readily prevalent.
6. Rather if an investigation is done on the conjugal life of Partha Sarkar the complainant and Alpana Das the offender, then it may be prevalent that there is some motive & intention or may be even malafide intention is working on the part of Partha Sarkar to malign the entire system of issuance of certificate by our predecessors.
Succinctly it may be commented that as is prevalent from the documents submitted
by Partha Sarkar and his pointed claims there is nothing found to substantiate his claim, rather all the evidence contradict his claim and leads us to a malafide intention playing underneath on the part of Partha Sarkar. However more in-depth investigation may not be ruled out to find out faults in the process of issuance of certificates' by our prodecessors but as for me to comment that too may yield any result because all the evidences available leads us easily to that conclusion.
Submitted for necessary perusal and action.
Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar),
Date:- 12.08.2011.
Memo No. 1240/1(4)/SDO
Copy forwarded to:-
1. The District Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The SPIO, Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The Vigilance Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur.
4. Shri Partha Sarkar, the complainant.
Sub-Divisional office,
Baturghat (Sadar),”