Pena No. 42/2011 In Appeal 152/SIC/2010 on 06/06/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Penalty No. 42/2011

In Appeal No. 152/SIC/2010

Decided on :06/06/2014

Shri. G.D. Phadte

R/o. H.No. 898,

Nila Niwas, Alto Torda,

Porvorim, Goa. --- Complainant

V/s

Shri. M.S. Mardolkar,

The Village Panchayat Secretary/Public Information Officer

Village Panchayat of Penha de France,

Britona, Bardez, Goa. ---- Opponent

O R D E R ( ORAL)

RTI application filed on : 18/03/2010

PIO reply : 27/05/2010

First Appeal filed on : 20/04/2010

FAA Order dated : 10/05/2010

Second Appeal filed on : 11/06/2010

SIC Order dated : 26/05/2011

1) This penalty proceeding has the same matrix as in penalty cases No. 41/SIC/2011 and 42/SIC/2011. There are all between same parties and same time frame also.

2) Like in other 2 cases the RTI application here was made in March 2010 and the First Appellate Authority Order was passed on 10/05/2010 by directing the PIO to supply all information regarding the RTI questions asked pertaining to NOC for Sub- Division of Plot No. 46 and 46 A in survey No. 172 at Alto Porvorim.

3) The actual information was supplied within 20 days from the order of the PIO on 27/05/2010.

4) Hence as in other 2 matters the then SCIC has observed that no intervention of the Commission is required towards information which is furnished, however a show cause notice for penalty be issued to the PIO to explain his stand in filing the delay.

Contd----2/-

--2--

5) The PIO and Respondent Shri. M.S. Mardolkar has once again explained that

• The PIO was required to do Census duty from 01/04/2010 to 15/05/2010 in addition to his own duties. This resulted in delay.
• After order of FAA on 10/05/2010 he informed the Appellant telephonically to collect information which he kept ready but the Appellant collected it only on 27/05/2010.
• There was no intension to hide or refuse information.
• Hence the penalty proceeding may be dropped.

6) There appears to be some factual situation in favour of the Respondent in terms of census work load. At the same time a delay in the reply of RTI is likely to erode the confidence of the citizen. Hence I have to take a view which will balance between the 2 aspects. Hence I consider it proper and justified to impose a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the Respondent. He should pay within one month of this order.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.