news details |
|
|
| Not usuing info sought under RTI violates preamble of RTI Act: CIC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 6: The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi has shown a serious displeasure against the frequent RTI users who only extract information and never use the same for public good. The information obtained under RTI is hardly provided to media and this destroys the basic principles of Right to Information Act (RTI). CIC while disposing off a case titled S Kumar V/S General Administration Department (GAD) observed that the appellant who happens to be a frequent user of J&K RTI Act 2009 has hardly used the information for exposing the wrong doings.
Details available with Early Times reveal that an information seeker namely S Kumar filed an RTI application before the PIO, General Administration Department (GAD) , Civil Secretariat on 19-11-2014, seeking following information about the number of Gazetted posts viz Block Development Officer, SDMs, Tehsildar's, along with other Administrative Gazetted posts created by the GAD within J&K-Division wise, i.e, Jammu, Srinagar and Ladakh during the period 2014-2015 with location of the posts to be filled. This includes newly created Tehsils, Blocks and Sub-Divisional Offices by the GAD. The applicant also sought information about number of Junior KAS officers posts created in Tehsils, Blocks and Sub-Divisional offices, with their place of posting in each newly created Tehsils, Blocks and Sub-Divisional officers in the State and information about numbers of posts of Junior KAS officer fall as Tehsildar, B.D.O, S.D.M and how many posts are reserved as Jr. KAS officers departmentally viz RDD, Revenue Department, etc under Rota-quota, newly created Tehsils, Blocks and Sub-Divisional offices during the year 2014-2015. The information seeker vide his RTI application asked the PIO -GAD to provide complete details of the posts separately which are meant for Junior KAS officers and under Rota-quota departmentally with total posts of Jr. KAS and details of posts filled departmentally filled. Further the information seeker sought some more information on four points vis a vis KAS officers positing etc.
The PIO, General Administration Department (GAD) in consonance with PIO, Revenue Department and Rural Development Department provided whatever information was available in records. Not being satisfied with the response of PIO, GAD, appellant preferred first appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA) , GAD which was adjudicated by the FAA (Additional Secretary) on 27-02-2015. The PIO, GAD on the direction of FAA, GAD again provided a set of information on 31-03-2015 which the appellant confirmed before the State Information Commission (SIC) of having received the same during the case hearing on December 16th 2015.
The State Chief Information Commission (CIC) G R Sufi heard concerned PIOs and the appellant at Jammu office on Dec 16th. The CIC G R Sufi while addressing the appellant namely S Kumar, asked him that he is a frequent and habitual user of the RTI Act, since the enactment of the J&K State RTI Act, 2009 in the State.
CIC's order reads as: "The information so obtained by the appellant so far for last several years is not known whether it was used in accordance with the requirements for bringing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities as laid down in the preamble of the Act. He is one of the users of the Act to whom the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation made in the case of Aditya Banpadhyay V/s CBSE squarely applies, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the disclosure of the information is a general rule and exemption is an exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the Act does not intend that 75% of the time of the Government machinery be engaged by the free lancers like the appellant. It would be relevant, helpful and for guidance to reproduce verbatim the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation as mentioned above as under; " The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of the public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The order further reads as: "However, having regard to these observations and the spirit of the RTI Act, commission has minutely gone through the contents of the RTI application and information provided. After perusing the record, Commission found that information sought at point 1 of the RTI application has already been uploaded on the official website of Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, J&K. Since, information so sought is already in public domain, hence does not need to be disclosed to the appellant. Appellant to go through the said website and access the information accordingly. Information at point 2,3 & 4 of the RTI application has been provided in full. However, PIO, GAD is directed to give clarification on the website of General Administration Department with regard to rota-quota position. With regard to point 5 of the information, PIO, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, J&K is directed to upload copy of the authentic letter as mentioned in the RTI application on the official website of their department. Information on point 6 is already uploaded on the official website of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, J&K, which appellant also admitted before the Commission, hence this information need not again to be disclosed to the appellant. Appellant insisted that information at point 7, i.e., norms and reasons have not been provided why 100% Tehsildar posts have been filled up departmentally and why no Jr. KAS officer has been posted as Tehsildar. In reply to this, FAA, GAD has very sensitively and legally referred to the definition of the information as used in the RTI Act and has held that questionnaire can not be asked. However, since the matter pertains to Revenue Department, therefore, PIO, Revenue Department to reply this point of information. Appellant has also argued that officers have not been placed properly. Since, no such information is sought in the RTI application regarding placement of officers, therefore, Commission cannot take any cognizance on this point. Similarly, there are few more querries raised by the appellant during the hearing, which were not listed in his original RTI application. An appeal emanates from the original RTI application. As these points have been raised now, hence are considered to be extraneous to his RTI application, therefore cannot be entertained". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
