Penalty 09/2014 in Appeal 184/SCIC/2012 Interim Order on 26/08/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Penalty 09/2014 in

Appeal 184/SCIC/2012

Interim Order dated:26/08/2014

Shri. Laximan Vithal Naik Govekar,

R/o. H.No. A- 71, Ambekhan,

Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez, Goa. ---- Complainant

V/s

Smt. Neetal Amonkar,

Then Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka-III

AERO for 07-Saligao Constituency

Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. ---- Respondent

INTERIM O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 29/02/2012 and 24/04/2012

PIO replied :25/04/2012 and 18/06/2012

First Appellate Authority order :27/08/2012

Second Appeal filed on : 05/11/2012

1) This penalty case has the background of Appeal No. 184/SCIC/2012 which arises out of original RTI application filed by the present Complainant Shri Laximan Vithal Naik Govekar, to the Mamlatdar of Bardez and PIO on 29/02/2012. The information was sought regarding the deletion of his name from the Electoral role of 07- Saligao Assembly Constituency Part No. 28, serial No. S-28 holding EPIC No. TVH0661366. This RTI application, apart from opening remarks, contains 5 questions as under:

1.“Whether your office or BLO officer have received any request of deletion of name under EPIC No. TVH0061366 at sr no. S-28 from Part No.28. If so please furnish me with such application for deletion”.

2. Kindly furnish the name of the concerned person/Officer who has deleted my name form the Electoral roll.

3. Whether any notice is issued to the undersigned before or after deletion and if any inquiry is conducted by your office while deleting my name. If it is so kindly furnish the copy of notice and also the details of the Inquiry by your office.

2/-

-2-

4. What action is provided by the office against the negligent officer/person for wrongly deletion of my name from the election roll kindly specify the same and also the action that your office going to take against the negligent staff for denying my precious right to vote.

5. If my name is shifted kindly furnish with the EPIC card number shifted and the constituency to which it is shifted and what is the serial number for which I have to caste my vote”.

2) The Mamlatdar of Bardez sought information from the Respondent who was the then Jt. Mamlatdar III Bardez and also the AERO Mapusa who is technically the AERO of 07- Saligao Assembly constituency. The Respondent replied that the said entry, that is, the name of Complainant been deleted in view of report of Booth Level Officer, Part No. 28 for 07- Saligao Assembly Constituency. No detailed information was given as asked in questions 1 to 5.

3) It is also pertinent to note from Page No. 17 of the Appeal Memo in second Appeal No. 184/SCIC/2012 that on 24/04/2012 the complainant had also approached the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Panaji complaining that “ his name is deleted from the roll without prior intimation to him. His part is 28 and sr no 28, and the reason for deletion has put “shifted” but he is staying in same house not shifted for last 61 years. His family names are there on electoral roll but only his name is deleted from the roll. Please take quick and prompt action”.

4) On this Complaint an immediate electronic instruction was given to the AERO to redress the grievance within one day but it is case of the Complainant that AERO ignored the same.

5) Additionally a second RTI application dated 24/04/2012 was also filed by Shri Laximan Vithal Naik Govekar,( Complainant) to the Chief Electoral Officer Goa. This was transferred under section 6 (3) and sent to Deputy Collector and ERO of 07- Saligao Assembly Constituency who in turn transferred it to the AERO namely the Respondent on 23/05/2012. A reply was once again given on 18/06/2012 that his name was deleted in view of report of Booth Level Officer, of Part No. 28 for 07 Saligao Assembly Constituency. This reply was given by the

3/-

-3-

respondent Neetal Amonkar in her capacity as PIO and Mamlatdar of Bardez. The reply dated 25/04/2012 to the first RTI application was also given on the basis of information supplied by her, then working as Jt. Mamlatdar III and AERO .

6) It is pertinent to note that in the second RTI application too, the question No. 1 to 5 of the earlier application were repeated. None of the two replies dated 25/04/2012 by PIO Mr. Brijesh Manerkar, nor reply dated 18/06/2012 given by Neetal Amonkar gave any information about question 1 to 5.

7) The first appeal was filed by Laximan Vithal Naik Govekar which was registered by case No. 22/36/2012/LVNG/RTI and decided on 27/08/2012. It was partly allowed by the FAA to direct that

“the respondent and PIO shall provide relevant information within their custody within 20 days”.

8) Since the same was not provided, the second appeal no 184/SCIC/2012 was made against the AERO for 07- Saligao Assembly Constituency.

It is prayed in the appeal that

• The AERO Mapusa/PIO/Mamlatdar of Bardez Saligao Assembly Constituency be directed to supply the relevant information.
• The PIO may be punished for the suppression of the information from the appellant which was legally obligation of the PIO to furnish under the act.
• The PIO may be directed to locate the concerned file and in case of default be punished accordingly.
• Penalty may be imposed on the PIO for negligence withholding information in terms of section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005.

9) When the second appeal was taken up for hearing on 14/03/2014, the Respondent AERO of 07- Saligao Assembly Constituency was present. She was enquired about the instruction received from the Chief Electoral Officer on 25/04/2012 and she orally requested adjournment to verify from her leave record whether her failure to carry out the instruction of the Chief Electoral Officer was on account of her being on leave.

4/-

-4-

10) Thereafter on 29/04/2014, and 07/05/2014 she remained absent. On 07/05/2014 the advocate V.S. Goltekar for orginal RTI applicant (Complainant herein) filed request to include Neetal Amonkar as Respondent No. 2 by name and the same was allowed, as she was the person holding information for both the RTI applications and hence the deemed PIO. He also requested permission to make amendments to the earlier appeal and the same was allowed. He has specifically added a paragraph and asked for exemplary penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act against Neetal Amonkar. A separate notice was issued under section 20 (1) to Neetal Amonkar which is the present matter. She is being represented now by Adv. Nafisa Barreto, and Adv. G.D. Kirtani. On four hearing dates namely 20/06/2014, 01/07/2014, 11/08/2014 and 26/08/2014 she or her advocates have failed to show any proof that she was either on leave on 24/04/2012 or was temporarily transferred away from her job as AERO of 07 Saligao Assembly Constituency.

11) This last notice be issued to her to keep on record the displeasure at her failure even to answer this small issue and for her to explain why it should not be communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer that she has deleted the name of the Complainant and the original RTI applicant without any record and has also failed to act upon the instruction received on 24/04/2012 from Chief Electoral Officer. She should also be informed that the regular hearing in appeal No. 184/SCIC/2012 and in penalty case No. 09/2014 for having failed to supply information on the RTI question mentioned above would also be taken up on the same date. All hearings adjourned to 16/10/2014, to give her a last chance.

Sd/-

( Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji – Goa.