Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012 and Penalty 20/2014 In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012

and

Penalty 20/2014

In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012

Shri Lindo Jeronimo Furtado,

R/o. H. No. 51, Copelwaddo,

Sernabatim, Salcete – Goa. ………… Complainant

V/S

1) Public Information Officer,

O/o Dy. Collector & SDO, Margao

2) Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao ………… Opponents

1) This case has a peculiar background. On 30/08/2010 the appellant wrote his RTI application asking for information with respect to case No. LRC/Illegal-Conv/58/98, 59/98, 57/98, 45/98 and 62/98. He asks for a copy of the letter of SDO addressed to the Mamlatdar Salcete under Reference No. SDO/SA4/Illegal-Cons/Misc/98/1512 dated 14/07/1998 and the survey conducted by Mamlatdar in response to the letter of the SDO. He also asks for the report of the Mamlatdar under Reference No. MAM/Sal/Q1(III)/121/98 dated 13/08/1998.

2) He submitted one copy to the Mamlatdar of Salcete and the same copy to the SDO of Margao. Both of whom are PIO’s of their respective offices. On 31/08/2010 i.e, the very next date he wrote another two RTI applications with regard to the same 3 questions to the two PIO’s. However the opening sentence of this new RTI application states –

“ Allow me to inspect the documents of the following cases with reference to case Nos. LRC/Illegal-Conv/58/98, 59/98, 57/98, 45/98 and 62/98. Letter of the SDO addressed to the Mamlatdar of Salcete under reference No. SDO/SAL/Illeg-Conv/Misc/98/1512 dated 14-07-1998”

3) Once again one copy each of this application was presented to the Mamlatdar of Salcete and the SDO of Margao on 31/08/2010. He was called by the SDO by

Contd---2/-

--2---

letter dated 28/09/2010 (within 30 days) to attend the SDO office to identify and collect the documents as required by paying the necessary fees for the same.

4) On 08/10/2010 he made the first appeal to the additional collector Salcete stating that –

• I had made RTI application’s dated 30/08/2010 to the SDO Margao and Mamlatdar Salcete.
• I had also made another RTI application dated 31/10/2010 to the SDO Margao and Mamlatdar Salcete, under subject inspection of documents.
• No documents are furnished to me, nor the concerned file is made available for inspection.

5) The FAA passed the order on 19/10/2010 “it is seen that after inspection on 14/10/2010 no fresh application is made hence dismissed.” However the reply filed by the SDO before the FAA is also relevant. It states that “on receipt of application dated 31/08/2010, the applicant was invited to identify documents required by him and collect the same on payment of required fees. The appellant has inspected on 14/10/2010 but not asked for any certified copy of any documents.” The Mamlatdar of Salcete has replied that he had transferred both the applications dated 30/08/2010 and 31/08/2010 to the SDO Margao u/s 6(3).

6) The Complaint is filed on the ground that both the PIO’s have given him the reply on 19/09/2011 and 04/10/2011 respectively but no documents or information has been furnished as ordered by the SCIC. The said complaint is numbered Complaint 85/SCIC/2012.

7) I have perused the reply of the Mamlatdar, Salcete as annexed at D1 by the Complainant. It reiterates that the Mamlatdar had already replied to the original RTI application within time that he is transferring it u/s 6(3) to the SDO Margao. I take this reply as satisfactory and hold that the no complaint case survives against the Mamlatdar, Salcete and Respondent No. 2.

Contd---3/-

--3--

8) The reply of the SDO Margao which is annexed at D states –

“ The Respondent do herby state and submit his reply to the application dated 31/08/2010 of Shri Lindo J. Furtado, r/o Sernabatim, Salcete, Goa as under.

On receipt of said application dated 31/08/2010, in case No. LRC/Illeg-Conv/58/98, 57/98, 45/98, 62/98, a letter dated 28/09/2010 was issued to the applicant to identify the papers/documents required by him and to collect the documents as required on payment of necessary fees. However, the applicant has inspected the files on 14/10/2010 but not identified or asked for any certified copy of documents in the matter.”

9) Now, the issue before me is

• Should the RTI application dated 30/08/2010 be read in isolation?
• Should the above reply of the PIO be taken as a complete reply?

10) The first questions has already been discussed in my judgement in Penalty case No. 64. I quote

11) At this stage it is pertinent to examine the nature of 2 RTI applications dated 30/08/2010 and 31/08/2010. They are verbatim the same except that the first does not talk of inspection. It is relevant to note that they are only one day apart, and therefore any recipient PIO is likely to treat both of them as a continuity and also treat the 2^nd application as an update on the 1^st application. Further, for any reply given within 30 days, the PIO is allowed to charge fees. This provision can be misused by some unscrupulous PIO to quote higher fees and pass on irrelevant documents. To prevent this, the RTI Act also provides that for any reply where fees is to be charged, the PIO will allow inspection so that the RTI applicant can identify only the relevant pages and need not have to pay for the irrelevant information. Thus the whole objective of providing for inspection being for the benefit of the RTI applicant, the PIO is more likely to treat a request for inspection as superceding the earlier and as final request. The close chronology and sameness of the 2 applications is suggestive of they being in continuation and not two distinct RTI applications deserving two separate replies. The reply of the PIO needs to be viewed in this perspective.

Contd---4/-

--4—

12) This is further borne out of the fact that the first appeal memo mentions about both the applications and claims that neither information nor inspection was given.

13) Coming to second question we have to examine the reply of the PIO against the factual matrix in the case. The Respondent SDO has already filed his reply to the complaint memo on 26/06/2012. He objects to the delay in filing complaint memo and reiterates that the PIO can supply information only when it is available in his file. Information which is not available has to be treated as non existing information and it cannot be furnished.

14) The complainant has not denied the fact the he visited the office of PIO and inspected the documents but could not identified any documents relevant for him. He has not been able to show any malafide in the action and the replies of both the PIO’s.

15) In view of above I hold that the complaint lacks merit.

16) A penalty case was started under penalty case No. 20/2014 essentially for the reason that the Respondent PIO was not attending.

17) In view of the above discussion, I also consider it fit to dismiss the penalty case in 20/2014 and discharged the notice to both the PIO’s.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.