Compl 7/SIC/2014 on 5/11/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 7/SIC/2014

Decided on: 5/11/2014

Shri. Joseph Carneiro

Plot No. 51, Journalist Colony,

Alto- Betim, Porvorim- Goa. ---- Complainant

V/s

1. Registrar of Co-operative Societies/FAA

Registrar of Cooperative Societies

O/o. Sahakar Sankul, 4^th & 5^th Floor,

Govt. of Goa, Patto- Panaji.

2. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies/PIO

Central Zone, Panaji – Goa. ---- Respondents

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 24/10/2013

PIO replied : 21/11/2013

First Appeal filed on : 05/12/2013First Appellate Authority Order in : 27/01/2014

Complaint filed on : 14/02/2014

1) When this matter came up for hearing, Complainant and Respondent No. 2 are present. Respondent No. 1 is represented by his Deputy Registrar, Mr. Manerkar who gives the background of the disputed registration of Shangri-La Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd; Miramar, Panaji – Goa, Which he has filed in case No. 49/SCIC/2013.

2) Respondent No. 1 and 2 have not filed their reply. However it is clear from the RTI application dtd 24/10/2013 and reply of the PIO to the RTI application that information as regards question Nos. 4, part 2, 5 and 6 was not given by claiming that the information is not available with his office.

3) I have perused the order passed by the FAA. The FAA has relied on the OM No. F.10/2/2008-IR dated 24/10/2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, New Delhi to state that it is not obligatory on part of Public Information Officer (PIO) to provide the information to the Appellant which is not available on the records of his office.

2/-

- 2 -

4) The error in the FAA reasoning is too obvious. He has simply accepted the seven words uttered by the PIO namely “Information is not available with this Office” If the RTI applications can be so quickly and happily disposed by all the

PIOs by simply uttering a seven worded statement as above then that would be the end of the RTI Act. The FAA has not only his duty and his responsibility but also has adequate knowledge of Department which enables him to ask the questions “should the information have been available with the PIO”. If the answer is yes, then he must make all the efforts by directing the PIO to locate the information. I find that the PIO has merely taken the pleas of non availability and the FAA has simply accepted it.

5) Through the submissions brought on record in case no. 49/SCIC/2013 the background of Shangri-La Society reveals as below.

• In the year 1992, there was a proposal for constructing four buildings A,B,C and D with the proposed name Shangri-La Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd; Miramar, Panaji – Goa, on a certain plot “A” admeasuring 2839 sq. mts at Miramar. When the flats were constructed and occupied the residents decided to get their society registered.
• The initial application for registration taken to the Registering Authority, Respondent No. 2, on 02/04/1992 included the builder’s NOC for all the four buildings as well as the details of the structures. It also stated that required information regarding some members was filed but not for all members. The Registering Authority requires 3 legal documents.

(i) NOC for all the buildings under the four structures which was supplied.

(ii) Details of all the plans for four structures which was supplied and

(iii) Detail of ALL the members which was perhaps not supplied.

• Accordingly registration was granted only in respect of structure D, on the ground that information regarding only those members was available. These details have been submitted by Shri Manerkar today in respect of Appeal No. 49/SCIC/2013.

• The Secretary of the said society vide letter dated 16/07/2004 informed the respondent-2 that as and when the remaining 3 buildings A, B, and C were ready and completed, the occupants enlisted as members of the society and they were contributing towards membership fee and maintenance expenses,

3/-

- 3 -

sinking repair funds. Therefore the secretary requested for certificate to say that the Shangri-La Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. comprises of Building A,B,C, and D. However, the then Asstt. Registrar vide letter dated 30/07/2004 informed that the above request cannot be considered. In reply to the said letter society vide letter dated 28/0/2004 forwarded the copy of “No Objection Certificate dated 16/07/1993” from Builders/ Developers, stating therein the said Builder/Developers of the Shangri-la Housing Complex at Miramar built on Plot “A” admeasuring 2839 sq.mtrs. comprising of 4 buildings viz. A, B, C and D have no objection to flat/shop owners joining the “Shangri-la Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.”

• Further by their letter dated 28/09/2004 the society also forwarded NOC from builder dated 16/07/1993 stating “No Objection to flat/shop owners joining the “ Shangri-la Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited” formed by the 11 promoters/flat owners of building D as per Sale Agreement executed between the Builder and Flat/Shop owners.”

7) In the light of above background the RTI question No. 4 and its answer by PIO is quoted –

“ Copy of the NOC from the land owners and the developers building A,B, and C for the formation/registration of the Shangri-la Co-op. Hsg. Society mandatory perfoma sheet with details of all the proposed members for registration as required by the ARCS-Central Zone duly filled in by each member and submitted for formation of the said society.”

8) The crux of the situation appears to be that while the mandatory proforma sheet for no member was given, how the Registering Authority, allowed the registration for the members of D building only but excluded the members of A B C and D buildings. This issues need to be looked into, by the FAA.

9) Another central issue is that as the NOC is for all the four structures, the Registering Authority has to allow the registration of other remaining 3 buildings of A, B, C also either with or without the mandatory proforma sheet, but they need not provide separate NOC from the builder. In fact this clarification is already

4/-

- 4 -

given by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies in his order No. 21-1-95/TS/RCS-III/2056 dated 28/10/2009 addressed to the Secretary, The Shangri-la Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Miramar, Panaji – Goa, with subject - Distorted information given by the office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, (Central Zone) regarding status of the Society which states – “I am to refer to your leter dated 09/09/2009, I would like to invite your kind attention to letter No. ARCS/CZ/HSG/206/ADM/92/581 dated 12/01/2005 and letter No. ARCS/CZ/HSG/206/ADM/92 dated 11/02/2005 addressed to the Chairman of the society by the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central Zone, Panaji. After going through the records and proceedings of file No. ARCS/CZ/HSG/206/ADM/92, it is seen that the Shangri-La Co-op, Housing Society Ltd. was promoted initially by the occupants of Building ‘D’ and later the occupants from Building ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ also have been enrolled as members which is evident from the Audit Reports of the different years, as available in this office.

All the Buildings A, B, C and D have been constructed in the property surveyed under Chalta No. 1 of P.T. Sheet No. 120 of the property denominated as “ROGULEM” or “OULEM MORODA” situated at St. Inez, Village Taleigao. A “No Objection” certificate issued by the Builder was furnished. However, the Society failed to get the land transferred in the name of the society for the reasons best known to the Society It is thus evident from the records that although the Shangri-la Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Was promoted initially by the occupants of Building ‘D’, but in due course of time the occupants of other Building i.e, A, B, and C have also joined/enrolled as members and the present strength of the Society is 39 members. Thus, it is evident that all these buildings form a part of the Shangri-la Coop. Housing Society Ltd.”

10) It is obvious that the FAA has also not gone into these questions. Hence this matter is reminded back to FAA to consider all these issue by giving a fresh hearing within 1 month from the date of receiving this order. A separate case may

5/-

- 5 -

be started against PIO u/s 20(1) and opportunity should be given to him to explain his failure to supply information.

- - ORDER - -

Complaint is allowed with above directions. Order declared in open Court. Inform parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.