Sunday,
July 8, 2001, Chandigarh, India
|
|
DPI (P) inspects primary
schools Ludhiana, July 7 Along with Ms Inderjeet Kaur Bhatti, Deputy District Education Officer, the DPI visited government primary schools at Jawahar Nagar, Sarabha Nagar, Red Cross Bhavan, Dholewal Chowk, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar and Housing Board Colony. The DPI noted that all schools lacked basic infrastructure, including accommodation, seating arrangement and lights. Strength in most of the schools was half of the normal due to heavy rainfall. The DPI is also said to have pulled up staff as she had received complaints of irregularity and lack of proper attention on their part. Interestingly, when the DPI and the Deputy DEO visited Government Primary School at Sarabha Nagar, much water had accumulated on the campus, that the two could not even enter gates. The teachers were, therefore, told to come outside and discuss the problems of their school. When Ms Hardial Kaur visited the school at Housing Board Colony at 12.10 pm, all students had been sent off by teachers. When asked teachers said that parents themselves came to take their children before time due to bad weather. Ms Bhatti said the DPI asked the teachers that they would make efforts to improve the infrastructural facilities at schools and that she would keep visiting schools of different districts on Saturdays to check their infrastructural and other needs. |
PSEB directed to refund money to
consumer Ludhiana, July 7 According to the complaint, the consumer had purchased a house from Bishamber Dass and he was the beneficiary of the electricity connection. The representative of the complainant disclosed that the meter was changed on June 23, 2000. He added that the board issued a memo on July 10, 2000, to the consumer, demanding Rs 44,678, in which it was mentioned that the meter was running slow by 50 per cent. The consumer alleged that the demand was illegal and the allegations made in the memo were false. He further alleged that his connection had been illegally disconnected due to non-payment of the demand. He demanded the forum to direct the PSEB to restore the connection and to quash the demand. The PSEB pleaded that the connection of the complainant was checked on June 23, 2000, during a door-to-door checking of the meters in the area. It was found that a seal of the meter was broken and it was recording 50 per cent less consumption of energy. The board stated that in order to confirm this, the meter was sent to the M.E. laboratory for computerised checking. The respondent maintained that as per the report of the laboratory, the meter was recording 50 per cent less consumption of energy and it was a clear case of theft of energy. The board stated that the account of the complainant was rightly overhauled from date of installation of meter till its removal on the basis of the report. The PSEB said the demand was legally raised and the compliant was liable to be dismissed. The forum observed that the spot checking report was not signed by the consumer and there was no mention whether the consumer was present at the time of checking or refused to sign the report. The forum further stated that the presence of the complainant was not recorded in the M.E. laboratory report, which was mandatory. The forum said there was no reliable evidence to prove that the meter was packed and sealed properly, which was necessary. The forum held that the demand had not been raised as per rules of the PSEB and was liable to be quashed. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |