Appeal 130/SIC/2013 on 27/08/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No. 130/SIC/2013

Decided on 27/08/2014

Shri Jawaharlal T. Shetye

R/o. H. No. 35, Ward No. 11,

Khorlim, Mapusa, Goa ……Appellant

V/s

1.Deputy Conservator of Forest/Public Information Officer,

North Goa Division,

Ponda-Goa.

2.Conservtor of Forest(WL & ET)/First Appellate Authority,

Forest Department, 3^rd Floor, Junta House,

Panaji-Goa ……Respondents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application dated : -03/07/2013

PIO reply on : -05/09/2013

First Appeal filed on : -30/08/2013

FAA Order dated : -12/09/2013

Second Appeal filed on : -26/09/2013

1) This second appeal arises out of original RTI application dated 03/07/2013 made to PIO/Deputy Conservator of Forest North Goa Division, Panaji, Goa in respect of action taken and other details of illegal cutting of trees in Mapusa for which an earlier Complainant was filed on 06/04/2013. It is noteworthy that the Department had immediately proceeded on this Complaint and booked offence on 08/04/2013.

2) As for RTI query the Reply prepared by the Office of the PIO on 03/08/2013 seems to have been actually signed by the PIO on 05/09/2013 and it was received on 06/09/2013. A First Appeal was already filed on 30/08/2013. It is noted in the Judgement of FAA that the Appellant was absent but was called telephonically and he confirmed that he has received the information. The PIO too submitted that the information has been given. Thus the Appeal was dismissed.

--2-----

---2---

3) Second Appeal was filed on 26/09/2013. Claiming that there is a delay of 29 days by the PIO.

4) The prayer clause seeks information regarding query No. 2,3,4,5 and a Penalty for delay.

5) I have perused the documents. As for Questions 3 & 5, the information that the inquiry is in progress is correct as seen from reply to query 1. Further, an offence has been registered and the details are supplied in answer No. 1.

6) When the case was heard on 27/06/2014 it was noted that “Appellant as well as PIO present. Backdrop of the case is that the land and tree were owned by Shri Sudhir Kandolkarm and trees were felled by him without permission for which case has been launched. Now building has also come up, by the land owner. Forest has no role beyond filing the criminal case. Appellant seeks short adjournment”.

7) However, the Appellant remained absent on both the subsequent days of hearing. The PIO has submitted that the reply was infact ready on 03/08/2013. “However, due to engrossment of the PIO in the ongoing Assembly Session works and in the NGT cases as well, the PIO actually signed the reply letter only on 05/09/2013. There was no other reason for the delay in replying the appellant. The delay was inadvertent and not deliberate or planned, by any standard”. He also mentioned orally that his Department is otherwise prompt to RTI applications. Hence the delay in this case may be inadvertent.

8) It is true that a prompt action was taken by the PIO on the very First Complaint which was received on 06/04/2013, by booking an offence on 08/04/2013. Hence I consider it sufficient to direct the PIO to be more careful and prompt about replies to RTI applications.

-----ORDER----

With directions to PIO as above the Appeal is closed. Order declared in Open Court. Parties to be informed.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji-Goa