Complaint No. 237/SIC/2010 Decided on 07/07/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 237/SIC/2010

Decided on 07/07/2014

Shri Kashinath Shetye

R/o. Bambino Building,

Alto Fondvem, Ribandar,

Tiswadi, Goa. ………Complainant

V/s.

Executive Engineer- X/Public Information Officer,

O/o. Executive Engineer X,

Works Division- X,

Water Resources Department,

Sanguem, Goa ……Opponent

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 22/02/2010

PIO reply dated : 04/03/2010

First Appeal filed on : NIL

FAA Order dated : NIL

Complaint Filed on : 11/03/2010

1. Complaints case Nos. 204, 205, 206,207, 208, 209, 210,211, 212, 213, 217, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235 and 236 (all labled as SIC/2010) have the same matrix and hence call for a similar judgement. Present case also falls in the same category.

2. This Complaint arises out of original RTI application dated 22/02/2010 made to PIO/Executive Engineer X, WRD, Sanguem, Goa. It asked for information as below:

“The following certified information is required by the applicant of the full WRD from 01/01/2008 till 01/01/2010; divisions of WRD of Goa State regarding ground of extension of time to various works undertaken.

3. It requires so much information that all the files of the departments will have to be copied a simple question is quoted requirements of clause:

Contd----2/-

---2---

“Payment to contractors

• Requirement of clause 7
• Final payments
• Time schedule for payment of bills
• Inspection of works and issue of completion certificate
• Payment through bank
• Deduction of income tax at source
• Deduction of VAT and cess (Building and other Worker’s Cess.”

4. The PIO has answer in time on 04/03/2010 that the RTI question does not asked for precise and perfect information.

• It has not been possible to give an estimate of the cost of supplying the documents
• Further he should come for inspection for the needed documents.

5. The complaint has been made without approaching the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the PIO have failed to furnish the required information.

6. It is important to quote from the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in Civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Noarises. 7526/2009)

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr ……… Appellants

V/s.

Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors ………. Respondents

It is quoted in para 37 by the Hon’ble bench.

“Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information ( unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it

Contd----3/-

---3--

be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials

striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure on the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties”.

7. The Complainant and his representative remained present only till 24/03/2011 and thereafter they have remained absent till the last date of hearing on 07/07/2014.

8. The PIO who was present for hearing and has orally prayed that the application may be treated as a misuse of RTI and be dismissed.

9. I see the merit in his submission but also must comment that some of the information asked can be and should be kept on website which will relieve much of the burden of PIO. The PIO as well as the Department should make efforts in that direction.

• ORDER-

The present Complaint is dismissed since the complainant has not availed of the opportunity for inspection which can allow him to restrict his questions to the really relevant and needed information rather than asking for “ All and Sundry” information of all cases. Inform the Parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.