news details |
|
|
| SIC orders refund of RTI fee to applicant | | Puts BDO on penalty notice | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 28: As the Public Information Officer (PIO) cum Block Development Officer (BDO) Drabshalla in Kishtwar district asked an RTI applicant to pay photocopying fees to the tune of Rs 9,500 even after the lapse of 30 days , the State Information Commission (SIC) has taken this matter very seriously and has directed the BDO to refund the said fees as the same cannot be charged if the PIO does not provide the information within a stipulated time of 30 days. The SIC has also issued a penalty show cause notice in favour of the erring BDO who is presently posted in Ghat block of Doda.
Copy of SIC order available with Early Times reveals that Farooq Ahmed Keen, S/O Mohd Sultan Keen, R/O Patnazi, Bonjwah, Block Drabshalla, Tehsil & District Kishtwar, moved an application dated 31.10.2013 before the PIO/ B.D.O, Drabshalla under the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 wherein he sought certain information related to execution of works under MGNREGA. The PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla vide office No.BDOD/1214 dated 22.11.2013 requested the information seeker to deposit an amount of Rs.9,500/- before 30th of November on account of computerization/Photostat charges into the official Account No.SG-5106(RTI) in JK Bank Drabshalla. The PIO cum B.D.O, Drabshalla further informed the information seeker that the amount is tentative and can be changed later on. The information seeker deposited the said amount in JK Bank Drabshalla on 04.12.2013 in the official account of concerned B.D.O .
Having received no response from the B.D.O., Drabshalla, Farooq Ahmad Keen filed first appeal before the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu which was disposed of vide No.DRDJ/RTI- 147/2014/6238-42 dated 14.07.2014 with the observations that appeal is not maintainable under J&K RTI Act, 2009 being time barred hence rejected. Thus, feeling aggrieved of the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ie Director, Rural Development Department (RDD) , Jammu the appellant filed second appeal dated 21.07.2014 before the State Information Commission (SIC). The SIC after receiving the second appeal listed the matter for hearing on 19.08.2014 and during the course of proceeding held on that day, PIO / B.D.O., Drabshalla was directed to furnish the requisite information to the information seeker within one week and file compliance report to the Commission. In compliance to the aforesaid order of the Commission, the PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla sent the requisite information to the information seeker under a registered cover dated 13.09.2014 which was returned un-delivered due to non-availability of the addressee. The photocopy of postal receipt is brought on record for reference by BDO. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that though there is delay on the part of the PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla in providing the information to the information seeker within the statutory period, the information seeker slept over his right to appeal and preferred first appeal dated 07.07.2014 after a lapse of about seven months which was rejected as time barred. However, the fact of the matter is that the appellant deposited the cost of information (Rs 9,500 )as demanded by the PIO cum B.D.O., Drabshalla and did not receive any information even after the payment of requisite fee and such inaction on the part of the PIO enables the information seeker to seek information free of cost.
" In view of the aforesaid facts, PIO/B.D.O.,Drabshalla is hereby directed to refund the aforesaid amount to the information seeker within ten days from the pronouncement of this order under an intimation to the Commission and also re-send the requisite information sought by him in the RTI application in a registered cover at his residential address provided in the RTI application" reads SIC order
During the course of proceedings held at SIC office Jammu on 16.12.2014 , the PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla submitted before the Commission that the RTI application of the information seeker was never brought to his notice by the subordinate staff and he came to know about it only when the appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority/Director, RDD, Jammu which was dismissed as time barred hence he did not act in the matter. The PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla further submitted vide his counterstatement No.BDO/D/RTI/304 dated 25.09.2014 that immediately after receiving the direction from the Commission on 19.08.2014 he complied with the same by consolidating the information which was requested by the information seeker in bulk pertaining to the previous years.
The SIC order further reads as :
" Perusal of the aforesaid facts show that there is no malafide or intentional delay on the part of Shri. Sushil Khajuria, PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla as the matter was not brought to his notice by the subordinate staff. He is hereby directed to identify the person concerned in his staff who slept over the RTI application of the information seeker and recommend disciplinary action against him under Service Rules and file compliance report to the Commission. The PIO/B.D.O., Drabshalla also identified his predecessor namely Showkat Mattoo (Now B.D.O., Ghat, Doda) during whose tenure the RTI application was filed and the cost of information was deposited as per his direction, but no information was provided to the information seeker within the statutory period. Sh. Showkat Mattoo(Now B.D.O., Ghat,Doda) is hereby directed to show cause why penalty under section 17 of the J&K Right to Information Act, 2009 may not be imposed upon him for his failure to provide the requisite information to the information seeker within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the matter will be disposed of under rules."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
