Lovely Professional University — Cheating and fraud by rti department of lovely professional university

Address:	Ludhiana, Punjab, 141001
Website:	www.rtihumanright.com

The role of LPU under RTI act shows that the higher education of India has been gripped into the hands of corporate family and they have started to mint money from education. They have converted it into lucrative business as a result the system of private university in the present circumstances has brought unskilled and unqualified students in the market.
The corrupted bureaucracy and greedy politicians has tarnished the main object of education in present scenario. In India there is no hearing, no rules and regulation to rein the private universities’ management committee and instruct them to make their education system for the welfare of students and nation.
In India University Grant Commission and MHRD no pay any heed to take action against private university as a result under the blessings of politician and bureaucrats all private universities have no fear of any law and order who will check or investigate them for distributing degrees and diploma in first class division to all unqualified students.
I filed a complaint against Lovely Professional University regarding RTI information to the state information commission Punjab to get information but till now one and half years have been elapsed but there is no positive response from them. LPU has appointed advocate to attend state information commission hearing and it has been found that state information commissioners Punjab Chander Parkash, Harinder Pal Singh Maan and Yashvir Mahajan also helped LPU to hide information.
In fact I filed an application under RTI Act to seek some information from Lovely Professional University distance education study center that has been working all over India on dated[protected].
When LPU PIO failed to furnish any information within stipulated time I wrote a complaint to State Information Commission Punjab.
State Information Commission Punjab Chander Parkash after examining the documents placed on record it is found insufficient reply and ordered that PIO office the Registrar Lovely Professional University Jalandhar to file her reply to the show cause issued to her vide orders dated[protected] before or on the next date of hearing.
On dated 12 May 2015 SICP show cause issued vide order dated[protected] for willful delay /denial in supplying the information. In this reply Lovely Professional University RPIO had many excuses to avoid furnish any answer of the RTI application.
Another false point in the reply that therefore, on receiving a copy of the original RTI request of the complaint addressed to the undersigned along with the order of the Hon’able Commission sent on 24 March 2015 requisite information had been supplied to the complaint on[protected] and that was duly acknowledged by the complainant and he was satisfied with the same.
In fact LPU has not furnished any information to me till date. A number of persons from Lovely Professional University followed me and pressurized to me continuous to withdraw RTI application.
At last with the good faith and assurance of our NGO Chairman that LPU authority will furnish information within two or three day. I signed on the letter on 15th April 2015 one day before the date of hearing in the SICP on this condition that they will provide me requisite information.
Instead of provide me information the LPU PIO on 13th May 2015 supplied the letter to SICP signed by me that applicant is satisfied and got information. Sh. Chander Parkash SICP adjourned the case no 135 of 2015.
After some days, we filed two more application to seek same information from LPU but on hearing date 2 February 2016 in the court of Punjab State Information Commissioner Maan & Mahajan, the LPU advocate presented same letter in excuse that they have supplied the information to the applicant.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No.[protected]
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Paul Sharma
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, ,
809/2A, Prem Nagar,
Bindravan Civil Lines,
Ludhiana ..…Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Lovely Professional University,
National Highway – 01,
Phagwara – 144411(Punjab) ..…Respondent Complaint Case No. 135 of 2015
Present : None on behalf of the complainant,
Sh. Charanjit Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing, held on 10.03.2015, a show cause was issued to PIO of
office the Registrar, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
Sh. Charanjit Singh, Administrative Officer, who appeared on behalf of the
respondent in today’s hearing submits that the requisite information has already been supplied to the complainant, Sh. Paul Sharma on 09.04.2015. A copy of the same is taken on record.
He also produces a written-note signed by the applicant as an acknowledgement of
having received the requisite information, in which he claimed that he is satisfied with the information supplied. It is taken on record.
After examining the documents placed on record, it is found that PIO of office the
Registrar, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, has not filed his reply to show cause issued to him vide orders dated 10.03.2015.
Another opportunity is given to Dr. Monika Gulati, PIO of office the Registrar,
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar, to file her reply to the show cause issued to her vide orders dated 10.03.2015 before or on the next date of hearing.
The case is adjourned to 13th May, 2015 (Wednesday) at 11:00 A. M. in
Chamber, S. C. O. 32 – 34, Sector 17 – C, Chandigarh.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.
(Chander Parkash)
16th April, 2015 State Information Commissioner

Dr. Monika Gulati,
PIO of office of The Registrar,
(Regd. Post) Lovely Professional University,
National Highway – 01,
Phagwara – 144411(Punjab)

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No.[protected]
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Paul Sharma
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram,
809/2A, Prem Nagar,
Bindravan Civil Lines,
Ludhiana ..…Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Lovely Professional University,
National Highway – 01,
Phagwara – 144411(Punjab) ..…Respondent Complaint Case No. 135 of 2015
Present : None on behalf of the complainant,
Sh. Charanjit Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing, held on 16.04.2015, another opportunity was given to
Dr. Monika Gulati, PIO, to file her reply to the show cause issued to her vide orders dated 10.03.2015.
The complainant, Sh. Paul Sharma, through a letter dated 12.05.2015, which has
been received in the Commission vide Diary No. 12210 dated 13.05.2015, has alleged that no information has been received by him till today and he was made to sign the acknowledgement letter for having received the information, by a senior person of the Lovely Professional University.
Sh. Charanjit Singh, Admn. Officer, who appeared on behalf of respondent in
today’s hearing, submits that the requisite information has been supplied to the complainant on 09.04.2015.
Sh. Charanjit Singh also submits a photostat copy of reply dated 12.03.2015 signed
by Ms. Monika Gulati, Registrar, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar against the show cause issued to her. It is taken on record.
As reply sent by Ms. Monika Gulati is not in original, hence, another opportunity is
given to her to file a reply in original form by the next date of hearing.
The complainant, Sh. Paul Sharma is advised to represent his case in person on
the next date of hearing.
The case is adjourned to 11th June, 2015 (Thursday) at 11:00 A. M.
in Chamber, S. C. O. 32 – 34, Sector 17 – C, Chandigarh.
(Chander Parkash)
13th May, 2015 State Information Commissioner
CC :
Dr. Monika Gulati,
PIO –cum-Registrar,
(Regd. Post) Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara – 144411(Punjab)
 
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No.[protected]
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Paul Sharma
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram,
809/2A, Prem Nagar,
Bindravan Civil Lines,
Ludhiana ..…Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Lovely Professional University,
National Highway – 01,
Phagwara – 144411(Punjab) ..…Respondent Complaint Case No. 135 of 2015
Present : Sh. Paul Sharma, the complainant in person.
Sh. Charanjit Singh, Administrative Officer, on behalf of the respondent.
ORDER
On the last date of hearing, held on 13.05.2015, Ms. Monika Gulati, Registrar,
Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar had sent a copy of the reply dated 12.03.2015 against the show cause issued to her, which was not in original form, hence, another opportunity was
given to her to file a reply in original form.
The appellant, Sh. Paul Sharma, appeared in person in today’s hearing.
In compliance to the order dared 13.05.2015, Sh. Charanjit Singh, Administrative
Officer, who appeared on behalf of the respondent in today’s hearing, submits a reply dated 12.05.2015 to the show cause signed by Ms. Monika Gulati, Registrar, Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar. It is taken on record.
I have gone over the reply dated 12.05.2015 submitted by Ms. Monika Gulati and
found that the explanation given by her is genuine. In view of the explanation, the show cause issued to her is dropped.
In view of the above, the case is disposed of and closed.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties.

(Chander Parkash)
11th June, 2015 State Information Commissioner

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-33-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Ms. Anita Kumari,
H.No.809/A, Prem Nagar,
Bindravan Road, Civil Lines,
Ludhiana.
--------Appellant Vs.

Public Information Officer,
O/o Director,
Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara.
First Appellate Authority
O/o Director,
Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara.
-------Respondent
Appeal Case No.3088 of 2015

Present: (i) Sh. Paul Sharma, on behalf of the appellant
(ii) None is present on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

Heard
2. Vide RTI application dated 12.06.2015- addressed to the PIO, O/o Lovely Professional University, Phagwara- Ms. Anita Kumari has sought the information.
3. Aggrieved, the information seeker filed an appeal before the departmental authority. However, still aggrieved, he has now come to the State Information Commission Punjab.
4. Appellant has authorized Sh. Paul Sharma to appear on her behalf. Sh. Paul Sharma states that no information has been given to the appellant so far. Respondent has sent a letter that due to ongoing examination at the university, he is unable to attend today’s hearing. Respondent may note that this is the last opportunity given to him to appear before the Commission.
 

5. On the request of the respondent, appeal is adjourned to 18.01.2016 (at 11.00 AM) for further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties.


Sd/-
(Harinder Pal Singh Mann)
State Information Commissioner
Dated: 15th Dec, 2015
 

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Tele No.[protected], FAX No.[protected], Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sh. Paul Sharma
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Sharma,
R/o House No.1133/14 B, Luxmi Street,
Shiv Puri Road, Ludhiana -141001
Appellant
Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director, Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara.

First Appellate Authority
O/o Director, Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara
Respondents
APPEAL CASE NO.3815/2015

Present : Sh. Paul Sharma, Appellant in person.
Adv. Ramandeep,[protected], Counsel for the Respondent.


ORDER

The respondent has submitted a written reply in which he states that the information earlier sought by the appellant on similar score vide his application dated 21.08.2014 was supplied to him which was duly acknowledged to have been received by him. He has attached a copy of an acknowledgement thus issued by the appellant. The appellant denies to have received such information. A copy of the reply filed by the respondent has been handed over to the appellant. The appellant is directed to file a rejoinder if he deems appropriate.
To come up on 10.03.2016 at 11.00 AM.
Sd/-
02.02.2016 (Yashvir Mahajan)
State Information Commissioner

 


STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 32-34, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH
Tele No.[protected], FAX No.[protected], Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com

Sh. Paul Sharma
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Sharma,
R/o House No.1133/14 B, Luxmi Street,
Shiv Puri Road, Ludhiana -141001 Appellant

Versus
Public Information Officer,
O/o Director, Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara.

First Appellate Authority
O/o Director, Lovely Professional University,
Phagwara Respondents

APPEAL CASE NO.3815/2015

Present : None on behalf of the Appellant.
Sh. Hardeep Singh, Munshi of Adv. Ramandeep, Counsel for the Respondents.

ORDER
The order was reserved on 10.03.2016.
In the instant case the appellant is seeking information regarding the Study Centres established by the respondent University and other allied information on various scores. On the very first date of hearing the respondent had submitted that the requisite information was duly supplied to him under acknowledgment which was denied by him. The parties were asked to put in their respective written submissions which they did. This forum had gone through it.
The appellant says that though he had signed an acknowledgement of having satisfactorily received the information but in fact the same was never provided to him. In fact he was allured/threatened into signing the same. Thus he has been constrained to file a second appeal with the Commission.
The respondents, on the other hand, submit that they had supplied him information on all points. According to them the appellant had earlier also approached the Commission through a complaint No.135 of 2015. During the pendency of the above complaint the information was given to him which he acknowledged by writing “information received, satisfied” under his signatures. A copy Contd..page…2
-2-
APPEAL CASE NO.3815/2015
of the same is available on record. His complaint was disposed of accordingly by the Commission’s order dated 11.06.2015. They further allege that with a view to harass the University the appellant again submitted an application demanding the same very documents which were supplied to him earlier. It was pointed out to him by the respondents that as per dictum of law laid down by the Central Information Commission, the citizens have no right to repeat the same or similar or slightly altered information request under RTI for which the response has already been given.
According to the respondent it has been observed by the Hon’ble Central Information Commission:
“Once information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application and in the process, the authorities would loose that much time to address the other RTI applications or performing their general duties in their public office. Repeated RTI application amounts to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be right in refusing the same with intimation. Because the repeated RTI applications has an effect of clogging the public offices, it would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI applicants, besides preventing the officers from performing their general duties attached to their office.”
It has also been held that in case such repetitions occur it shall be a valid ground for refusal of information. The respondents, further, submit that his wife Smt. Anita Kumari has filed a similar appeal from the same address on the same points with the Commission which is pending with another bench. This further vouches their grouse that these appeals are motivated with intent to harass the respondent University.
The appellant, on the other hand, through a written communication has denied having received the information and pleads to arrange to provide it to him.
Contd…page..3
-3-
APPEAL CASE NO.3815/2015
This forum has given thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the rival parties. The appellant claims himself to be an advocate. He does not deny having issued a receipt in acknowledgement of having received the information to his satisfaction. Had his signatures were taken under duress he should be aware of the criminality involved in such an action and should have proceeded to take the action against the respondents accordingly rather than having maintained a studied silence. Without any qualms he attaches a certificate that no such appeal or complaint earlier was filed against the facts. He does not deny that his wife has demanded the same information and an appeal is fixed with the other bench for hearing.
His submissions thus sound dubious and non-serious. It is obviously with reference to such applications that Hon’ble Central Information Commission has maintained that such repetitions can be legitimately considered a valid ground for refusal of information. This bench considers it as an abuse of the Act and refuses to take cognizance of the appeal.
Disposed.
Sd/-
24.05.2016. (Yashvir Mahajan)
State Information Commissioner


It seems that the role of State Information Commission has been deteriorated and they have started to help bureaucracy and mint money. Other hand Indian government has appointed retired officer as an Information Commissioner to provide their services to public to get their requisite information from government department. But these appointed information commissioner who is already declared incapable as per government law of retirement. In the tenure of public service in government department such officer has touched highest point in corruption. Now they have been getting pension and have become so greedy that they are working to earn more money in the state information commission department. Now question arises that how can it be assured that a retired officer who is providing his services in State Information Commission will not get benefit from Public Information Officer and what is guarantee they will not help or support to PIO who avoid or hide information.
Some semi government information provider such as a society, institute, university, company and authority has appointed advocate to help them to hide information, delay it or harass information seeker. The state Information Commissioners help the advocate and government officers and listen to them carefully and note their point as they have to decide a civil case of ancestral property.
State Information Commissioner has been started to think themselves as they are qualified Judge. All department officers visit their bench to get justice from them.
Applicant put question in RTI Act and Government PIO has to provide requisite information as it is to be the point vise complete as sought by applicant.
Actually the work of state information commission is a middleman between information seeker and information provider but state commissioner has changed it into judiciary judgment.
I request to you please investigate the work of State Information Commission Punjab strictly and provide relief to information seekers and furnish to me complete information sought by me from Lovely Professional University.
Applicant
Shri Paul Sharma RTI Activist
www.rtihumanrigh.com
[protected]