Appeal 148/SIC/2011 Interim Order 28 /11/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No. 148/SIC/2011

Interim Order Dated: 28 /11/2014

Shri. Franky Monteiro,

H.No. 501, Devote,

Loutolim, Salcete- Goa. ---- Appellant

V/s

1. The Public Information Officer,

Chief General Manager,

GIDC, Patto, Panaji – Goa. ---- Respondent No. 1

2. The First Appellate Authority

The Managing Director,

GIDC, Patto, Panaji- Goa. --- Respondent No. 2

.

I N T E R I M O R D E R

RTI application Received : 14/02/2011

in the office of PIO

PIO replied : 14/03/2011

First Appeal filed on : 29/03/2011

First Appellate Authority Order in : 28/04/2011

Second Appeal filed on : 28/06/2011

1. This second appeal arises out of original RTI application filed on 14/02/2011 in the office of PIO and Chief General Manager of GIDC, Panaji, Goa.

2. It was claimed in first appeal that a letter was sent to appellant on 14/03/2011 asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 1484/- and collect the documents on any working day. After he paid the amount and collected the information, he felt that

• information to question 1(a) was not given,
• Information for 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) was incomplete,
• information for Question 2 was unsatisfactory,
• information to question 3 was incorrect,
• Information to Question No. 4 was unsatisfactory,
• to 6(1) was incorrect and
• for 6(2) it was not furnished.

3. The FAA has rejected the claim that information to question 1(b), (c), (d), 2, 4, and 6(i), are incorrect or unsatisfactory. He has stated that the appellant

Contd ----2/-

--2--

was not able to establish the same. He agreed that information to querry 1(a) and 3 are not given. However he has held that it could be a genuinely mistaken decision of the PIO and therefore directed that the information should be given. Regarding question No. 6 he has cited the judgement of Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto v/s Goa State Information Commission observing that it would be assistance.

The Hon’ble High Court has held that the definition of the “information” under Right to Information Act cannot include within its folds answers to questions and justifications which are matters within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot be properly classified as information. In view of the said legal position & the Para 6 of the application dated 11/02/2011 being in the nature of query/question answer to question etc, the same cannot be provided to the Appellant.

4. FAA has not agreed that the additional fees charged should be refunded for not having supplied complete information. His decision is that the fees charged is against given information which is collected by appellant and hence not be refundable.

5. I have perused the appeal memo filed in the second appeal before SCIC. The main grievance is that against the payment of Rs. 1484/- wrong and incomplete information was given. Appellant remained absent on many occasions after 05/07/2012 (although he has been appearing in this court in some other matters), Reply by the then PIO was filed on 08/12/2011 and copy is already received by the applicant. He has not filed any rejoinder.

6.On the date of final hearing, It is orally argued by the present PIO that

• the original RTI application was received in the office of PIO on 14/02/2011 and the reply was given on 14/03/2011.
• In the first appeal it was directed by the FAA to supply information for Para No. 1A and 3 also which was given after order of FAA.
• Information on above 2 points is given to appellant and same is annexed in exhibit R-1-14 and R- 1-15 in the reply filed before SCIC on 08/12/2011.
• Hence the appeal be dismissed.

Contd --- 3/-

--3--

7. On perusal of PIO’s reply dated 08/12/2011 it is seen that after the order of FAA, the then PIO sent a note to PIO and Dy. GM (A) for information at para 1(a) and to Dy GM (E) for para 3 who in turn re-transferred it to Dy. GM (A) as can be seen Exhibit R-1-12, R-1-13, and R-1-14.

8. Thus the PIO claims that information to point 3 was made available in the note at R-1-13 and information at Para 1(a) was made available in the note R-1- 15. He has however not clarified in his reply whether the information contained in the notes R-1-13 and R-1-15 were actually posted to the Appellant and it so, when? The present PIO has also claimed immunity for himself, on the ground that both the above stated Dy. GMs are under suspension, whereas the then PIO Mr.Verenkar has stopped coming to office after requesting for voluntarily retirement.

9. I therefore direct that the present PIO must supply the information contained at Exhibit Note R-1-13 and R-1-15 to the appellant within 30 days from receiving this order.

10. As for information on question 6, in my opinion it does not fall under the category of citation stated by FAA but falls within the definition of information under section as discussed below and hence its answer also must be supplied. To that extent, the order of the FAA is set aside.

11. The Question asked in 6(1) “Can utility plots be allotted for industrial purposes or residential purposes by GIDC?”.

12. The structure of this questions is clearly asking about the rule position and must be answered in terms of available rules. Similarly question No. 6(2) results out of action taken in respect of question 6(1) and hence it has to be answered. Q.6(2)- “Whether alternate utility plots were factually provided and if so.“whether the revised plans have been approved by the technical authority of GIDC”. This is definitely not a matter of opinion or judgement but factual whether a particular action was taken. The present PIO is therefore directed to furnish information to both 6(1) and 6(2) within 30 days from getting this order.

Contd ---4/-

--4--

13. As far as refund of the Additional fees collected, I agree with the FAA that this money represents the information actually received by the Appellant and hence need not be refunded, unless the appellant shows that the money charged is not commensurate with the number of pages of information supplied.

14. The second appeal is filed with the prayer that

• PIO should be asked to give complete and full information.

• Reimburse the amount of Rs. 1484/-.
• Appropriate disciplinary action to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 for causing undue harassment, and delay to the Appellant by denial of the sought information till date.
• That necessary monetary penalty be imposed upon the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

--- I N T E R I M O R D E R---

As per above, the PIO is directed to supply of information to Q.No. 1 (a), 3 and 6(1) and 6(2).Remaining prayers to be decided in due course.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.