Penalty No. 29/2011 In Appeal 220/SCIC/2010 on 24/07/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Penalty No. 29/2011

In Appeal No. 220/SCIC/2010

Decided on: 24/07/2014

Shri. Nishant G. Sawant,

R/o. H.No. 1188, Mahalaxmi,

Bandora, Ponda- Goa. ---- Appellant

V/s

Executive Engineer- XVI (BC)/Public Information Officer,

P.W.D, work Div XVI (BC)

Ponda, Goa. ---- Respondent

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 05/04/2010

PIO reply dated : 30/08/2011

First Appeal filed on : 11/06/2010

FAA Order dated : 20/08/2010

Second Appeal filed on : 27/09/2010

SCIC Order dated :01/03/2011

Penalty notice issued on :14/03/2011

1) This penalty proceeding arises out of notice dated 14/03/2011, issued in view of SCIC order dated 01/03/2011 in Appeal No. 220/SCIC/2010.

2) An elaborate order was passed by FAA in original RTI case which notes as below.

“ The Respondent SPIO in his written reply has stated that he had requested the Appellant to attend his office on 26/04/2010 at 3.00 p.m for inspection of records and document vide his office letter No. PWD/Div.XVI(BC)/Accts/F.001/2010-11/45 dated 19/04/2010. However, he stated that the Appellant did not turn up to inspect the document. The Respondent SPIO stated that he had signed the letter on the same date, however he is not aware whether there was any delay in dispatching of the said letter. The Respondent SPIO further submitted that he had kept ready whatever information was available with his office so as to furnish the same to the Appellant and therefore pleaded before the First Appellate Authority to issue directive to the Appellant to attend his office, at the earliest convenient date to both parties for obtaining the said information.

Contd---2/-

--2--

After hearing the submission of both the parties and taking into consideration the document on record, the undersigned is of the opinion that the Respondent SPIO the Executive Engineer, Works Div. XVI, has not shown any malafide intention in hiding or refusing to furnish the information sought by the Appellant. The Respondent SPIO has also stated that he had got all the document ready to furnish to the Appellant and also to provide necessary information of work, records and document as requested by the Appellant. The undersigned also cannot agree to the submission of the Appellant that the information should be given free of charge as per the relevant clause of the Right to Information Act – 2005 since the onus of delay for non furnishing the information in prescribed time limit cannot be attributed to the Respondent SPIO as per the document brought on record. The appeal thus stand disposed off with the following order:-

“ The Respondent SPIO Executive Engineer, Works Div. XVI, PWD, shall furnish to the Appellant certified copies of the relevant document and provide inspection of Works, records and document as sought by the Appellant vide his application dated 05/04/2010, on payment of necessary charges as prescribed under the Right to Information Act- 2005 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

3) The SCIC has also taken cognizance of this observation. SCIC has observed as follows.

“It is seen that the Appellant, vide application dated 05/04/2010, sought certain information from the Respondent No. 1. The same was received in the office on the same day. It is seen by letter dated 19/04/2010 the Respondent No. 1 requested the Appellant to attend the office for inspection. It appears that the Appellant did not attend the office in pursuance of the said letter. Since information not furnished the appellant preferred the appeal before First Appellate Authority. By Order dated 20/08/2010 the FAA directed the Respondent to furnish the information within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.

It is also seen from the record that during the pendency of First Appeal the Respondent No. 1 sent the information by registered AD letter dated 02/08/2010 however the same was not accepted by the Appellant and the same was returned.

Contd---3/-

--3—

By Registered AD letter dated 30/08/2010 the Respondent No. 1 informed the appellant to pay Rs. 120/- as charge and to take away the documents. This was in pursuance of the order of the FAA. From Exhibit C4 it appears that the Appellant did not received the information.

Appellant contends that letter dated 19/04/2010 was in fact posted on 14/05/2010 and he produced Xerox copy of AD card. Assuming it is so the Appellant did not act on the letter. Instead preferred Appeal before FAA on 11/06/2010.

It is pertinent to note the finding given by the FAA which is as under:-

“The undersigned also cannot agree to the submission of the Appellant that the information should be given free of charge as per the relevant clause of the Right to Information Act – 2005 since the onus of delay for non-furnishing the information in prescribed time limit cannot be attributed to the Respondent SPIO as per the documents brought on record.”

It is pertinent to note that even after the order the Appellant did not collect the information.

“ The Appellant is partly allowed. The Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to furnish the information to the appellant vide his application dated 05/04/2010 within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance.”

4) Thus SCIC observes that Appellant did not collect information even after order of FAA. At the same time in the final order the SCIC has directed PIO to give within 20 days. He has ordered for notice U/s 20(1) which is the instant case.

5) When this matter came up for hearing on 04/06/2014, PIO submitted as the following “As per order of SCIC the then PIO has given information in pages C-1 to C-43 on 28/03/2011, the Appellant has received it. Thereafter the Appellant has taken dates from the then SCIC on many occasions (starting with 25/07/2011). Hence it must be taken that the information finally received by him on 28/03/2011 is sufficient. He has therefore stopped pursuing the matter.

Contd---4/-

---5—

6) The Complaint has stopped pursuing Hence at this stage I find it proper to close the penalty case. The FAA has verified from records of PIO and dispatch register. From that, PIO’s efforts to give information do not seen to be wanting. After FAA’s order, he did not furnish information because the FAA had directed to furnish it “on payment of fees.”. When this part of FAA’s order was set aside by SCIC, the PIO has supplied information without charging fees.

7) However one observation must be kept on record. The PIO and FAA have to be more careful as their dispatch appears to be in need of proper maintenance and proper supervision. They should establish a proper computer system to monitor inward and dispatch of their department.

8) A compliance report was called from the PIO for monitoring RTI application which is submitted today. Hence the penalty case is being closed. Inform the parties.

--- O R D E R---

As per above observation, case is closed. Notice to the PIO is discharged. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji-Goa