GOA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ground
Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza
CORAM:
Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint
No. 85/SIC/2013
Complaint
No. 86/SCIC/2013
Complaint
No. 87/SIC/2013
Complaint
No. 89/SIC/2013
Decided
on: 20/05/2014
Shri
Ashok Desai,
309,
3rd
floor,
Damodar
Phase – II
Near
Police Station,
Margao
– Goa. ------ Complainant
V/S
Miss.
Triveni Velip
The
Public Information Officer,
The
Mamlatdar of Salcete,
Collectorate,
South Building,
Margao-
Goa. ------ Opponent.
O
R D E R
Complainant
filed RTI application no.1 dated 15/5/2013 in office of PIO and
Mamlatdar of Salcete. The origin of this RTI application is the
request application filed by Mr. Antonio Mariano Furtado filed before
the Mamlatdar on 27/7/2011 with a request to issue certificate of
purchase/Sanad in respect of Mundakarial property surveyed under
survey no. 165 of Village Benaulim. The Complainant asked questions
numbering 1 & 18.
The
complainant also separately filed another RTI application to the same
PIO on the same date 15/5/2013 naming it as application no. 2 asking
identical questions no. 1 to 18 in regard to the very same request
application of Antonio Furtado dated 27/7/2011.
…2/-
--
2 –
He
has also filed in exactly identical manner another RTI application
naming it as RTI application no. 3 with the same questions and for
the same property. He has also filed the application no. 4 in the
exactly same manner. He has also filed the application no. 5 in the
same manner.
It
is not clear as to what prompts the complainant who is himself an
advocate, to file 5 identical applications concerning the same issue
and that too on the same day to the same PIO. I would refrain from
saying anything more about such behavior except for mentioning that
it definitely causes hardship to the PIO and wastes time of everyone
concerned.
His
RTI applications nos. 1,2,3,4,5 all dated 15/5/2013 have also
resulted in one complaint application each before the Commission, all
filed on 21/06/2013 and they have been registered as complaint No.
85,86,87,88 &89 ( but not in the same order).
A
separate judgment has been passed in case No. 88/SCIC/2013. Hence
these remaining complaint applications No. 85/SIC/2013, 86/SCIC/2013,
87/SIC/2013 and 89/SIC/2013 are dismissed as repetitive. Parties to
be informed.
Sd/-
(Leena
Mehendale)
Goa
State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji
– Goa.
No comments:
Post a Comment