| BDO "violates" RTI Act, his Director's orders | | SIC issues penalty notice | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 7: For "violating" RTI Act and the orders of the Director of his department, State Information Commission (SIC) has issued two notices to a BDO (Block Development Officer) wherein he has been asked to show cause as to why he should not be fined and penalized under the provisions of the state RTI Act.
Details available with Early Times reveal that Shafiq Mushtaq Lone of Mandi, Poonch, filed an RTI application on December 27, 2014 with PIO/ BDO of Rural Development Department (RDD), Mandi, seeking information about plan, non-plan assistance from the central funds, state funds from 2012-15 vis-a-vis schemes of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), Sampooran Grameen Rozgar Yojna (SGRY), Swarnjyanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna (SGSY), Indira Awas Youjna (IAY), Integerated Watershed Development Programme (IDWP), Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) Model Village under Prime Minister Reconstruction Scheme, National Social Assistance Scheme, National Rural Livelihood Mission, 11th/12th Finance Commission Award, and BADP, MPLAD and CDF in Mandi block.
The appellant feeling aggrieved of inaction on the part of the PIO, filed first appeal on February 7, 2015 before RDD Director, Jammu, which was disposed of vide order No DRDJ/RTI-281/2014/25496 dated 02.03.2015 with a direction to the PIO/BDO, Mandi, to provide the requisite information to the appellant within ten days under the provisions of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 with a warning to be careful in future while dealing with the cases pertaining to the J&K RTI 2009.
Thereafter, the appellant filed second appeal on March 23, 2015 before SIC. The Commission, after receiving the second appeal, listed the matter for hearing on 09.07.2015 and 27.07.2015. On both the dates, Yaar Ali Khan, BDO, Mandi, remained absent inspite of the fact that SIC had intimated him about the dates of hearing vide office notice Nos -- SIC/J/A/71/2015/723-24 dated June 25, 2015 and SIC/J/A/2015/902-03 dated July 20, 2015 through a registered cover. However, during the course of proceedings, SIC office contacted the PIO on telephone and he denied the receipt of the notices. However, he assured SIC that he would provide the requisite information to the applicant and sought ten days time to do the needful.
SIC 's order reads as:
" In view of the aforesaid facts and observations, PIO/BDO, Mandi, Yaar Ali Khan is hereby directed to furnish the requisite information to the information seeker within ten days free of cost under an intimation to the Commission and in case, the appellant desires to inspect the record, he be allowed to access the record in the office of the BDO, Mandi and after inspection of the record if the appellant requests for certified copy of the documents that may also be provided to him free of cost.
The perusal of the record and submissions made by the appellant shows that the PIO has deliberately denied the information to the applicant and even did not care to comply with the order No.DRDJ/RTI-281/2014/25496 dated March 2, 2015 of the First Appellate Authority/RDD Director, Jammu, and as such causing hardship to the appellant and compelling him to approach SIC.
Moreover, the PIO did not respond to the SIC notices whereunder he was directed to appear before it on the dates of hearing, that also appears to be a deliberate omission on his part to avoid and evade the notices requiring his attendance before the commission on 9. 7.2015 and 27. 7.2015. He is hereby directed to show cause as to why fine under Section 15 of J&K RTI Act, 2009 read with Section 32 Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977 may not be imposed upon him for his failure to cause his appearance before SIC on the above said dates of hearing.
The PIO is also directed to show cause as to why penalty under Section 17 of J&K Right to Information Act, 2009 may not be imposed upon him for denying information to the applicant. The J&K RTI Act, 2009 imposes obligation upon the PIO to dispose of an RTI application within 30 days from the date of its filing but in this case, the PIO even did not comply with the directions of the First Appellate Authority which amounts to suppression/obstruction of information on his part and he is hereby directed to submit his explanation to SIC within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the matter will be disposed of under rules." |
|
