Comp 563/SIC/2010 on 04/11/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 563/SIC/2010

Decided on 04/11/2014

Mrs. Nonita Quadros,

H. No. 1392/2,

Mazilwado, Benaulim.

Salcete Goa. ..….…..Complainant.

V/s

Public Information Officer,

(Shri. Paresh Fal Desai)

The Mamlatdar of Salcete,

At Collectorate Building

At Margao-Goa. ……..Respondent.

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 25/08/2010

PIO reply dated : 15/09/2010

First Appeal filed on : NIL

FAA Order dated : NIL

Complaint Filed on : 20/10/2010

1. This complaint arises out of original RTI application dated 20/07/2010 made to PIO/Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao Goa regarding complaint received in respect of Ration Card.
2. As stated in the Complaint Memo dated 20/10/2010. Complainant was the holder of the Ration Card No. SAL/18/164/Ben. She was called to remain present in the Office of Mamlatdar Salcete on 8/7/2010 and produced her Ration Card.
3. She therefore made one complaint dated 8/7/2010 and then made RTI application dated 20/10/2010 to know genesis of such action by the Mamlatdar. She asked for copies of any complaint or application or any

other details for which the inspection of her Ration Card was considered necessary by the Mamlatdar. The PIO for RTI is also the same Mamlatdar.

Cont…..2

::2::

4. Reply was given on 16/08/2010 (within time) stating that the matter of her Ration Card was taken up based on two old complaints dated 21/2/2007 and 10/10/2008.
5. Hence she made another RTI application on 25/08/2010 asking for certified copies of both the letters, action taken of both and information whether both of these were finally disposed.
6. Reply was given on 15/09/2010 stating that the certified copies of complaints and action taken has been kept ready which she should collect on payment of necessary fees.
7. It is the claim of the complainant that she visited the Office of the PIO on 23/09/2010, but she was told by office staff that no information was kept ready by the Office. On further visit to PIO on 28/09/2010, the PIO again confirmed that information cannot be provided. However the PIO orally told her that since her house was not built by her, she was not entitled for Ration Card etc. The complainant also alleges several threats given to her by the PIO namely Mamlatdar Salcete, for which reason she has served him notice U/s 80 of CPC r/w notice for sanction U/s 197 Cr PC and the matter is pending before other appropriate authority
8. Independly, she tried to serve a letter on PIO stating how their Office has failed to take the money for additional fees and give her information. Towards this the Mamlatdar PIO and Respondent wrote on 14/10/2010 stating that information has been duly supplied to her. This letter of Mamlatdar is more in the nature of answering to the notice U/s 80 of CPC and not so much on the issue of RTI question.
9. Stating above history the complainant has requested that:

1. PIO may be directed to provide the information.
2. To compensate for the loss and other detriments suffered for prosecuting her application.
3. To impose penalty on the PIO U/s 20(1) of RTI Act.

10. Reply has been filed by the PIO on 28/2/2012 in which he has give a para wise reply to the complaint. However, it is seen that the reply to the complainant para 12 is perfunctory. It does not explain on what basis the PIO has made a statement in his letter dated 14/10/2010 that information

Cont…..3

::3::

sought has been duly supplied. As can be seen from the chronology, it cannot be accepted that he has kept ready those two old complaints dated 21/02/2007 and 10/10/2008 which he claims as reason for calling the complainant to his office.

11. It is seen from the Rojnama that the complainant who was remaining present through her representative on earlier occasion was absent after on 25/2/2013 and did not appears even after last chance notice was issued on 8/9/2014.
12. The PIO has been represented by his Advocate. He is being directed that as far as prayer clause A is concerned, the PIO should supply the information by way of fresh letter under RPAD free of cost. It is admitted by PIO in his letter dated 14/10/2010 that the information has been supplied and the inspection of records was given. I take this statement as referring to his letter dated 15/9/2010 asking the complainant to pay the necessary fees but to mean that actual copies of old complaints dated 21/2/2007 and 10/10/2008 were given to the complainant. Hence it is directed that he should supply these documents irrespective of whether supplied earlier or not by RPAD within 30 days from getting this order. He should also furnish a copy of his RPAD letter before this office for record.
13. At this late stage, I do not consider it necessary to allow prayer clause B and C. Complaint is therefore partly allowed. Needless to add that if the then PIO or his present successor fail to supply copies of those two old complaints as above directed then the complaint may initiate a penalty case u/s 20(1) against the then PIO Mr. Paresh Fal Desai.

O R D E R

Complaint is partly allowed as above. Order declared in open Court. Inform the parties.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Information Commissioner,

Panaji-Goa.