Rajesh Gupta
JAMMU, Oct 13: Once upon a time a simple application under RTI was filed by a lady for seeking information regarding process of her own case on 2nd of July 2025, which was to be provided by 2nd August but work approach of JDA's, PIO, the Secretary, JDA can be observed from the documents & receipt of registered letter in JDAs office that dispatched with no/dt of 2nd Aug in back dated no/dt so why it reached to applicant just a distance of 2 Kms on 17th of August after 15th day raised some questions on working of Secretary, JDA, the boss PIO?
However, unsatisfactory reply was provided by the Secretary, as PIO,. Lekh Raj, Secretary, JDA as refused some personal information of applicants own file by quoting Sec 8(1)(b), which nowhere speaks for denial of such information?.
However, applicant filed Ist Appeal, & which was fixed on 4th August for hearing & by hearing, which was attended by representative of applicant, PIO, Tehsildar, Legal Assistant, Patwari concerned but none of the officers themselves could justify their observation of imposing Sec 8(1)(b) for not providing information but however, one Law Knowing, Legal Assistant read the guidelines of the said section from a book in presence of all & clarified to Ist Appellant Authority that said Section could not have been imposed as does not pertains to information desired, no doubts openly questioned working of PIO & other concerns, who provided the information?
Ist Appellant Authority, Jammu Dev Authority on the same day & time directed PIO, Secretary JDA to provide correct reply but the reply of boss PIO again raised a pointer towards working of Secretary, JDA, the PIO , Legal Assistant, who has been recently regularized but with illegal facts as per terms & conditions of her first appointment orders on contractual/consolidated basis for a period of only one year, by reading the book of RTI Act in meeting said, "I will read the rules regarding providing of said information but their weak knowledge caused non compliance as per order mentioned by Ist Appellant Authority", which may now cause filing of 2nd Appeal to bring their inefficiency & weak knowledge to higherups & thereafter to general public?
However, order copy of the order issued by Ist Appellant Authority on 15th Sep, copy of RTI reply's & clarification on Sec 8(1)(b), copy with CTN speaks the truth of working & proved lack of knowledge & proved causing intentional delays in public works of JDA as a whole, needed to be acted upon by VC, JDA to streamline the system in JDA , otherwise it can be observed that how such like Officers would have deciding genuine issues of general public of genuine & routine issues.
Now, one can see in reply to Ist Appeal in S.No.1 it has been informed that "Act does not permit creation of information, The information sought by the applicant is not available in the shape" but if it be matched wrt reply in Ist reply, where Sec 8(1)(b) was quoted, contradicts & raised clear cut questions on Legal Assistant concerned as this is legal language reply, otherwise it was simply asked for the noting made by concerned junior officers, who dared to over rule then VCs clear cut orders passed vide No. PS/430 dtd 11,08,2018 till day causing intentional delay in the applicants case?
In reply to S.No. 2 after Ist Appeal it has been replied that "Act does not permit creation of information, The information sought by the applicant is not available in the shape" but shocking to mention here that it was simply asked to provide noting's made after communication of Dv Com Jammu from 19.09.2023 but in previous reply Sec 8(1)(b) was quoted.
However, observing foul, Div Com again fired a tough letter dtd 17.05.2025 to VC JDA with copy to applicant & again called detailed report by 3 PM on same day but it has to be looked & enquired into, whether, VC Of the time bothered to provide the report by 3 PM but till date new VC seems to be sleeping over the issue as relying on incompetent Revenue Officers causing delay in deciding the decided issue, which has attained finality raised some more questions on top to bottom officers of JDA?
In reply to S.no.3, now it has been replied that "Demarcation line of PWD Line is not found in the records as land transferred to JDA 2004", then why they are asking for same in applicants case over a decided issue adjoining to JDAs land, raised a pointer towards their working &n proved case of woman harassment & causing intentional delays in public works?
In reply to para 4, now it has been replied that 13 NOCs are pending since more than 30 days but previously it was replied that no NOC is pending creates proved doubts on working of such like officers, otherwise as per BP rules it has been clarified that if no information provided to applicant after applying for BP case, he can start the work but if NOCs are put on hold on 30th day may cause approval of the BP Cases on proved fault of concerned Revenue Officer, needed to be enquired by VC over these 13 pending NOCs?
Now in reply to S.no 5 it is again strange to mention here that simple information was sought on JDA Lands, which are not fenced with quantity but a shocking reply has been proved that Revenue Officers are not aware of the quantity & details of JDA lands, which are open & which has to be fenced, which are causing encroachment by land grabbers in later stage, which is proved from the reply that concerned officers are not aware of their lands, which are needed to be fenced, a serious issue to be looked into by the VC JDA?
However, snapshots below with CTN speaks the competence of concerned officers of Jammu Dev Authority?
.jpg)    .jpg)
|