news details |
|
|
| SIC seeks explanation from DC Anantnag | | Damage caused to record in floods? | | Early Times Report
Anantnag, Dec 24: After an RTI activist was allegedly denied information by the office of deputy commissioner, Anantnag, about the damage caused to the official record in the September floods, he moved the state information commission (SIC), which, taking the matter seriously, has served a notice on the PIO and sought explanation from the DC.
The offices, where 2 to 5 pc of the record was damaged, claim that they have lost 50 to 60 pc record. To know the facts about the record actually damaged in the DC office, Anantnag, an RTI activist filed an application before the concerned PIO under RTI Act. After no information was provided to him, he filed the 1st appeal before the DC which too was not adjudicated and finally, he was forced to knock the SIC doors.
Taking the matter seriously, SIC served notices on the PIO and sought explanation from the DC for his failure to adhere to the provisions of RTI law.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Ghulam Hassan Bhat of Shalimar, Srinagar, filed a second appeal before SIC on November 30, 2015, stating therein that he submitted an RTI application on August 5, 2015 through speed post No EE8916186761N addressed to PIO in the office of DC, Anantnag. Bhat had earlier filed First Appeal under section 16 of J&K RTI Act 2009 before the DC who is also the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on September 11, 2015 through Speed post No. EE7037040IN. He alleged before the SIC in his 2nd appeal that no information had been provided to him till date despite the requests made under rules of J&K RTI Act.
Bhat had sought names of all the government offices which were located in the premises of mini-secretariat, Anantnag, during the September 2014 floods. As he filed 2nd appeal before it, SIC served notice on the PIO/Assistant Commissioner Revenue (ACR). In response to the SIC notice, he submitted that as per receipt register available in the RTI section, he had not received the main application filed on August 5, 2015, as a result of which he was not in a position to provide the requisite information to Bhat . However, the information was immediately provided to the information seeker vide No 2372 dated December 16, 2015 after receiving the main application annexed with the SIC notice.
As per documents enclosed with the counter reply of the PIO submitted before SIC, the Joint Director Planning Anantnag enclosed the information on December 16, 2015, which was sent by the PIO to the appellant on December 16 itself.
SIC order reads as:
" The Commission has noted that appellant has submitted the RTI application addressed to District Development Commissioner Anantnag through registered post on 05.08.2015. Thereafter, he has filed First Appeal before FAA/ District Development Commissioner Anantnag through Indian Post on 11.09.2015. Evidently, the information seeker has send application under RTI Act and First Appeal through prescribed mode of service, even though PIO has denied receipt of the application. Accordingly, District Development Commissioner Anantnag is directed to hold an enquiry and apprise the Commission about the action taken within two weeks. The Commission has noted that FAA (DC Anantnag) has not taken a decision on the appeal send to him through prescribed mode of service. He has also not filed reply to the notice of the Commission dated 08.12.2015.
Order further reads as :
"Therefore, District Development Commissioner Anantnag shall file written reply before the Commission within two weeks. Although the information asked for has been sent through registered post, the appellant denied to have received it. The Commission noted that information enclosed with the letter of PIO dated 16.12.2015 is not attested as is required under the RTI Act. Therefore, PIO is directed to send an attested copy of the information to the appellantwithin one week. The Commission has also taken serious note of the fact that PIO has not indicated his name against his signature in spite of repeated instructions by the Commission and GAD in this regard. PIO should ensure compliance so that such lapses do not occur in future. With the above directions, the appeal filled before the Commission is disposed of." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
