LAHORE: The purchase of official vehicles for the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly has come under scrutiny before the Punjab Information Commission following a complaint alleging non-disclosure of information sought under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013.
The proceedings stem from an application filed on June 15, 2025, by a citizenFayyaz Hussain, who wrote to Sajeel Khalid Warraich, Public Information Officer (PIO), Provincial Assembly of the Punjab Lahore, seeking certified information regarding vehicles purchased in 2024 for the offices of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and other Assembly officials.
Invoking Article 19-A of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right of access to information in matters of public importance, and referring to Section 13(1) of the RTI Act, the applicant requested certified documentation specifying the types and costs of the vehicles and clearly identifying which vehicles were procured for each office. Citing Section 13(1) of the Act, he asked that the information be supplied within 14 working days of receipt of the application.
According to the record, the applicant received no response within the stipulated period and subsequently approached the Commission. In a communication dated Oct 21, 2025, the Commission clubbed two complaints filed by the same complainant against the same respondent public body titled “Fayyaz Hussain vs Deputy Director (Publications) Punjab Assembly (Complaint No 14-7-2025-12/13) for consolidated proceedings.
Addressing the Deputy Director (Publications), Punjab Assembly, the Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2013 obliges a public body to provide certified copies of information held by it, unless the information falls within the exemptions set out in Section 13(1). In the event of refusal, the PIO is required to pass a speaking order citing the relevant exemption and forward a copy to the applicant.
The Commission directed the designated PIO to appear in person on Nov 6, 2025, at 11am, with a written explanation for not responding to the applications, along with two sets of certified copies of the requisite information or a speaking order denying the request. It further instructed that one set of the information or the speaking order be dispatched to the complainant by registered post or courier under intimation to the Commission.
Subsequently, in a letter marked “Top Priority” and dated Jan 5, 2026 (No PAP/PIO/07/2008/108), addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner, the Assembly’s PIO referred to the Commission’s order and furnished a list of vehicles purchased. The list showed procurement of one Toyota Land Cruiser ZX, two Toyota Fortuner GR-S, two Toyota Hilux Revo GR-S and two Toyota Yaris 1.3 cars.
The communication, signed by Mr Warraich as Deputy Director/PIO (PCP), did not provide the cost of the vehicles nor specify which of them were allocated to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or other officials, as sought in the original application.
In an order dated Jan 26, 2026, passed in Complaint No 14-7-2025-13, the Commission recorded that the complainant was not present, while Mr Warraich appeared on behalf of the respondent public body. The PIO submitted that all information in response to valid RTI requests had been provided and that the remaining information could not be disclosed. However, he failed to identify any provision of Section 13(1) of the Act to substantiate his position.
Noting that the complainant had regularly attended earlier proceedings, the Commission deemed it appropriate to afford him an opportunity of hearing. It directed that the order be communicated to him for submission of his stance and adjourned the matter to Feb 3, 2026.
On the adjourned date, none appeared before the Commission. It was recorded that the complainant had filed his contention through a letter dated Jan 27, 2026. A copy of the letter was ordered to be shared with the PIO for response on the next date of hearing, and the case was adjourned to Feb 16, 2026.
The case now hinges on whether the Assembly secretariat has fulfilled its statutory obligation under the RTI Act, 2013 to provide certified information within the prescribed timeframe or to lawfully deny disclosure through a reasoned order citing a specific exemption under Section 13(1). The Public Information Officer was directed to submit his written reply about not providing of the complete information to the complainant. Next date of hearing is March 2, 2026.
