news details |
|
|
| I&FC Deptt seeks Rs 80,000 as Xerox charges from RTI applicant | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Sept 10: The Irrigation & Flood Control (I&FC) Department has asked an RTI applicant to deposit Rs 80,000 as charges for photocopying of the documents he had sought.
The information seeker Mudassir Manzoor Shah, a resident of Kadlabal, Pampore in south Kashmir, had filed an RTI application before Public Information Officer (PIO) I&FC Department at Batamaloo, Srinagar, through speedpost on 27.01.2015 seeking information including
i. Complete detail of payments made by Sub Division Sonwar for river banks from Pampore to Chattabal Veer.
ii. Allotment, extension and approvals.
iii. Payment made for retaining wall and pitching.
iv. Payment made for protection of bunds.
v. Name of contractor, work checking authority and payment issuing authority.
The application was responded by the designated PIO Afroz Ahmad Mir, Executive Engineer I&FC Division Srinagar on 24.03.2015 . The PIO in his reply stated that magnitude of information sought was very high and required more time as some of the records asked for is related with DFA system and the matter has been taken up with the concerned officer for providing the information. Meanwhile, Mudassir was asked to deposit an amount of Rs 80,000 by the PIO for photocopying the record to be provided under RTI Act.
Mudassir filed first appeal with FAA of I&FC Division Srinagar on the grounds that no response had been received by him within 30 days of filing of RTI application. Thereafter, he filed second appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) Srinagar stating that he had been asked to deposit Rs 80,000.
Mudassir in his appeal filed before SIC requested the SIC that the I&FC be directed to pay compensation, impose statutory penalty under Section 17 of the J&K RTI and provide the information/documents to the appellant forthwith and pass further order or direction as the Commission may deem fit.
In response to the notice of SIC, the Executive Engineer stated in brief that making Xerox copies of all works is voluminous information, therefore the appellant was advised to deposit money for preparing the information. He also submitted that information was not denied to Mudassir and he had asked for information from 2005 to 2014 for which the department sought some more time to consolidate the information.
The SIC in its order on 17.08.2015 to the Executive Engineer said:
"In the light, clause 2 (i) of the Act, the appellant has been advised to attend the Division for carrying out inspection of documents/records and also collect Xerox copies of relevant records after selection. XEn submitted that both these documents have been sent to the appellant through speed post on 18.08.2015 and produced copy of postal receipts in this regard. The appellant did not attend before the Commission on the date of hearing on 17.08.2015 and also today on 28.08.2015. He has also not filed objections to the reply of the PIO send to him through post on 18.08.2015. The appellant has sought information in respect of works undertaken by Sub-Division Sonwar from Pampore to Chattabal Veer for a period 2005 to 2014.
"As per the Section 6(1) (b) of the RTI Act, the information seeker is required to "specify" the particulars of information. The information sought by the appellant cannot be treated as "specific information" by any stretch of imagination. The spirit of the RTI Act as provided in the preamble is "transparency of information to contain corruption". Preamble of the Act also provides that revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interest including efficient operation of the Government and optimum use of limited physical resources. Section 7(9) of the Act provides that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought, unless it would divert resources of the public authority disproportionately."
The SIC order further reads:
"In view of aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Commission is of the considered view that the information sought by the appellant is not specific, that compilation of such information would definitely divert the resources of the public authority disproportionately. In view of the above response of the PIO dated 17.08.2015 asking the appellant to attend his office to carry out inspection of documents and records and take relevant extracts thereafter is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also fulfils the requirement of transparency as enshrined in the preamble of RTI Act 2009. There are no orders as to the costs as the PIO has acted in good faith and at no stage he has denied access to information, but only informed the appellant the fact that "magnitude of information sought is very high". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
