Appeal 83/SCIC/2014-R- on 15/01/2015

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No. 83/SCIC/2014

Decided on: 15/01/2015

Shri. Sushant Ray

C/o. M/s. Powerirac Corporation,

G-4, Amarvan Babu Naik Road,

Near Santos Garage Aquem,

Margao-Goa. ..….…..Appellant.

V/s

The Director (Adminstration)/Public Information Officer

Goa Medical College & Hospital,

Bambolim, Tiswado, Goa. ……..Respondents.

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 15/05/2014

PIO reply dated (interim) : 21/05/2014

First Appeal filed on : 20/06/2014

FAA Order dated : NIL

Second Appeal filed on : 31/07/2014

1. The Appellant present. PIO (Administration of GMC) is present and claim that he is no connection with the matter and he has been wrongly impleaded as respondent. I agree.

2. the original RTI application received on 15/05/2014 has been made to PIO and Medical Superintendent of GMC. First failure of the PIO is that she has not given any reply to the Appellant.

3. She internally transferred RTI application to some person whose identity cannot be known from the papers. Thereafter Dr. Edwin Gomes, Professor in medicine has sent reply to the appellant on 15/05/2014 without mentioning who he is i.e. whether he is PIO or APIO or deemed PIO and to whom the first appeal should be made. He also has shown ignorance towards his responsibility under RTI Act.

Cont…..2

::2::

4. Not satisfied with the answer, the appellant has again sent a letter addressed to PIO and Medical Superintendent Dr. Sunanda Amonkar which she “refused to accept” on 20/6/2014. This is her second mistake. No PIO can be free from responsibility under RTI Act by simply refusing to accept postal communication which is clearly suggestive of being RTI matter. Hence it will have to be taken that she has received the RTI communication and again failed to answer.

5. Under this situation the appellant has filed the present appeal on 30/7/2014 directly before SCIC and hearing was fixed on 13/1/2015. The respondent namely PIO and Director (Administration) of GMC was present. He was directed to take quick corrective steps with regard to para 7 of the appeal memo which points out that no where in the campus of GMC, nor on the web site of GMC, any information is given as to who is the FAA. He being Administration (Director), it is his responsibility to ensure that such information is available both on the web site as well as through notice boards within GMC. Today he is present once again and has filed written submission that the Dean of GMC is the FAA.

6. Accordingly this case is remanded to the FAA namely the Dean of the GMC. A complete set of the present case is already available with the respondent Director (Administration). He should submit the same to the FAA (Dean) alongwith copy of this Rojnama, so that FAA can immediately initiate the hearing of first appeal and dispose the first appeal within 30 days.

7. The FAA & Dean is also directed to make sure that all the relevant PIO’s are issued notice for this case so that all the questions asked in the RTI application which could be related to different branches of the GMC may be answered properly. The FAA and Dean is also directed to separately clarify the position regarding answer No. 7 supplied by Dr. Gomes stating that as per GMC protocol the Nurses hand over the bodies to the next of kin. This is obviously not correct as nurses must be needing order from some

Cont…3

::3::

responsible Officer. The FAA should specifically clarify in his order the name and designation of the authority under whose order the nurses hand over bodies.

8. With the above direction this appeal is allowed and remanded to the FAA and Dean who should dispose first appeal within 30 days as per the RTI Act. Order declared in open Court. Inform the Parties.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji-Goa