SIC OR CIC MUST HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND REEXAMINE OF THE NON -COMPLIANCE/PENDENCY OF CASE HEARD.

Jagjit Singh a Head constable of UT police Chandigarh filed petition before the police department asking the PIO to supply information on allotment of 250 houses (out of turn) and take action against the CPIO of department for non compliance of the CIC order under RTI act adjudication and claimed that the department filed a forged corrigendum before the CIC. The matter was processed by the head constable through High court asking the police department to file reply on or before the next date of hearing given on9-10-2023. The head constable had filed RTI application before the police department and the CPIO on 6-12-2020seeking all documents related to the allotment of the houses, who had been alloted houses out of turn between june 2018 to August 2020.The CPIO refused to supply information with the comments that the matter is subjudice in the High court but the CIC found that the information is not appropriate and directed the police department to reexamine the case of the RTI application and file a revised reply to the applicant but the head constable stated before the CIC that CPIO has taken no cognisance of the order issued by the CIC. On the other hand the CPIO again taken the same plea that the matter was subjudice. After this the matter brought to the notice of the High court for taking cognisance of the forged reply by the CPIO that CIC has no power to reconsider his own order and the High court issued notices to the UT SSP and DSP for non compliance of the orders of the CIC, asking them to file a reply on or before the next date of hearing fixed on 9-10-2023.