news details |
|
|
| Election documents of Bali Bhagat denied under RTI | | SIC directs SDM north to allow inspection of record | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 13: The State Information Commission (SIC) has directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Jammu north to allow a Jammu resident to undertake inspection of official documents related to candidature of Bali Bhagat, Minister for Forests, who had contested last Assembly election from Raipur-Domana constituency on a BJP ticket.
Details available with Early Times reveal that Vikas Kotwal, a resident of Mohalla Afghana had moved an application on January 27, 2015 before the PIO/Chief Electoral Officer J&K under the J&K RTI Act, 2009. Kotwal had sought the following information:
Certified copies of the affidavit filed along with nomination papers by Bhagat; state the time and date on which the said affidavit was uploaded on the website of the Election Commission; whether the said affidavit (Form 2D) was complete in all respects at the time of filing the nomination papers; if the affidavit was not complete at the time of the filing the nomination papers, state the deficiency in it; certified copy of the notice issued to Bhagat for removing the defects in the above said affidavit; time at which the notice was dispatched to Bhagat; certified copy of the relevant page of the Dispatch Register where the factum of dispatch of the register has been recorded; state the time and date on which the said defect was removed by Bhagat; state the mode in which the above said defect was removed by Bhagat.
The CEO had transferred Kotwal's application to the office of the Returning Officer 78-Raipur Domana AC. The Returning Officer/SDM, Jammu north furnished the requisite information to the information seeker vide Office No.SDM/JN/PIO/RTI/2014-15/29-31 dated: 10.03.2015comprising of 15 leaves as enclosures.
However, the appellant was not satisfied with the information provided to him and filed first appeal on April 6, 2015 before the First Appellate Authority/CEO, J&K and later filed second appeal on July 8, 2015 before the SIC.
In his second appeal, Kotwal alleged that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had not adjudicated and disposed of his first appeal, during the statutory period and moreover, the information provided to him by the PIO is incomplete, incorrect and not as per the RTI application.
Kotwal had also alleged that information in respect of points (6), (7) & (9) of the RTI application was incomplete and despite filing his first appeal, the respondents had not provided him the complete information.
The Commission after receiving the second appeal listed the matter for hearing on August 5, 2015. During the course of proceedings held on August 5, at SIC office Jammu , Advocate Vilakshana Singh, Counsel for the appellant, was heard telephonically and he submitted that the information relating to points (6), (7) & (9) of the application is incomplete and has also requested for inspection of record vide point (9) of the RTI application, which has not been provided to him and as such the facility for inspection of record has been denied by the PIO.
However, the perusal of the response given by the PIO shows that PIO had requested the appellant to inspect the record in his office on March 14, 2015 at 12:00 noon. However, the appellant could not avail the facility of inspection of record as he had gone to Chandigarh, in connection with the treatment of his father and returned on March 15, 2015.
The PIO/SDM, Jammu north, Returning Officer 78-Raipur Domana Assembly constituency assured the Commission that revised information relating to queries No. (6) & (7) will be furnished to the appellant as directed by the Commission including the facility to inspect the record etc.
The SIC order reads:
"In view of the facts and observations, the PIO/SDM, Jammu North, Returning Officer 78-Raipur Domana AC is hereby directed to furnish the revised information relating to point No. (6) & (7) of the RTI application to the information seeker within one week from the date of receipt of this order and also allow the appellant an opportunity to inspect the record in his office on a working day, during office hours, and in case the appellant requests for a certified copy of any document that may be provided to him, free of cost. The parties are at liberty to settle the date and time for inspection of record which may be convenient to them. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
