GOA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama
Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM:
Smt.
Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint 510/SIC/2010
Decided on: 26/09/2014
Shri
Franky Monteiro,
H.No.
501, Devote,
Loutolim,
Salcete – Goa.
V/s
The
Public Information Officer,
Secretary,
Village
Panchayat Loutolim,
Loutolim, Salcete – Goa
O R D E R (Open Court)
RTI
application dated
|
:
|
21/06/2010
|
PIO
reply dated
|
:
|
21/07/2010
|
First
Appeal dated
|
:
|
Nil
|
FAA
Order dated
|
:
|
Nil
|
Complaint
filed on
|
:
|
18/08/2010
|
This
Complaint application has the same central issue and matrix as in
Penalty No 13/2010 and 14/2010. The complainant herein had submitted
3 RTI applications on 19/10/2009, 29/10/2009 and 23/11/2009 all
stating that information was requested under Goa RTI Act. The PIO had
refused information on the ground that there is no Goa Information
Act. The First Appellate Authority had allowed all the 3 First
Appeals on the ground that PIO is expected to be aware that there is
a Central RTI Act applicable all over Goa and he has to appreciate
the spirit of RTI Act rather than harp on the word “Goa RTI Act”
and directed the PIO to furnish information. This order of the FAA
was not carried out by the PIO. The RTI appellant therefore filed 3
Second Appeals namely 24, 25, 37/SCIC/2010. In all the 3, the SCIC
through the judgment dated 23/06/2010 has upheld the order of FAA and
directed the PIO to supply information. The Writ petition filed by
PIO before High Court of Bombay at Goa against the orders of SCIC has
also been dismissed, on 06/12/2010.
The
direction of SCIC has been once again disobeyed by the then PIO Amol
Tendulkar. While the Second Appeal No. 24 and 25/SCIC/2010
have already
…2/-
-
- 2 - -
resulted
in individual notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the
Complainant herein has preferred this complaint to declare the then
PIO Amol Tendulkar as habitual defaulter and therefore to take action
against him under section 20(2), in addition to a penalty under
section 20(1).
Hence
following the matrix of the detailed judgment passed in Penalty case
No. 13/2010 and 14/2010, this case is also held as a fit case to pass
the similar order.
As
for the response of the then PIO, it is seen that despite all the
opportunity available, he has not filed any submissions except an
application dated 15/06/2011 questioning the competence of SCIC for
hearing the cases as a single member bench even after the decision of
SCIC in second appeals were upheld by the High Court of Bombay at Goa
bench in dismissing his Writ petitions against them. This new point
raised by him after the orders passed by SCIC in Second Appeal No.
25/SCIC/2010, upheld by High Court, lacks merit too as it is not
substaited by any citation or any stay order. Hence it merits
rejection as in the penalty cases no. 13/2010 and 14/2010.
-
- O
R D E R
- -
In
view of above I pass the following order –
Complaint
is allowed. The then PIO is held as willful defaulter. Hence a
Penalty case be taken up against him by name under Sec 20(1) and
20(2) for exemplary punishment. Registry to register a fresh case of
Penalty and issue notices.
Order
declared in open court. Parties shall be informed of this detailed
order.
Sd/-
(Leena
Mehendale)
Goa
State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa
State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
No comments:
Post a Comment