Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 7: The State Information Commission (SIC) has castigated a Block Development Officer (BDO) for not accepting RTI fees in cash as this amounts to violation of RTI rules 2012 wherein in it clearly mentioned that fees under RTI Act can be paid in cash as well through a proper receipt. The commission has directed the said BDO to allow inspection of records by RTI applicant.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Ved Prakash Sharma a resident of village Balli P/O Nathal Jammu filed an RTI application before Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) Jammu (PIO) on 21-09-2015 and sought information elaborated in 09 points about the developmental works executed in his village from last 4 years . That having not received any response from ACD, Jammu (PIO), appellant preferred first appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA) , Directorate of Rural Development Department, Jammu on 03-11-2015.Director RDD Jammu ( FAA) vide his order dated: 12-12-2015 directed BDO, Kharaballi, (PIO) to provide information after receiving necessary fees. But according to Ved Prakash (appellant) got no intimation fromBDO, Kharaballi
In response to the notice of the State Information Commission (SIC) , dated: 19-02-2016, BDO, Kharaballi (PIO) filed a detailed reply dated: 29-01-2016 with copy a to appellant, stating that the RTI application moved by the appellant on 21-09-2015 before ACD, Jammu (PIO) was responded to by him vide letter dated: 09-10-2015, asking appellant to deposit fee amounting to Rs. 500/- in Government treasury as Photostat charges and in the meanwhile, appellant filed first appeal before FAA on 03-11-2015, alleging that no response was received by him from the PIO. That first appeal was decided by the Director Rural Development Jammu (FAA) vide order dated: 12-12-2015 with direction to BDO, Kharaballi (PIO) to allow physical inspection of record/information sought and charge photocopy charges @ Rs. 2/- per copy. That in compliance to the directions of the FAA, he issued a letter dated: 15-12-2015 to the appellant and informed him for inspection of record/information and deposit the amount @ Rs. 2/- per copy as Photostat charges. However, appellant did not respond to this letter, hence 2nd notice was served to the appellant. BDO, Kharaballi (PIO) in his response before SIC submitted that appellant did not responded to 2nd notice as well, hence a Do Parta vide his office dated: 10-01-2016 was served and pasted on appellant's house in presence of witness by the concerned Panchayat Secretary.
The appellant, Ved Prakash submitted before SIC during case hearing that he approached the BDO, Kharaballi with cash of Rs. 500/- in respect of first notice, but BDO refused to receive the amount in cash. BDO, Kharaballi, PIO admitted before the Commission that appellant approached him with fee in shape of cash, but he refused to take amount and instead asked him to deposit amount into the government treasury as indicated in notice dated: 09-10-2015.
"In this connection, Commission would like to refer to J&K RTI Rules, 2012, wherein at chapter 1, sub-para 4, it is provided that the fees shall be charged by way of cash against a proper receipt or bankers cheque, demand draft or Indian postal order. Therefore, the appellant was within his rights to deposit fee in cash, more so, when this amount is on account of Photostat charges, which is to be incurred by the respondents for copying of the information. Upon perusal of the records and after hearing both parties, Commission is of the considered view that PIO has responded to application within time by asking appellant to deposit fee and subsequent to direction of FAA, PIO has informed appellant to have inspection of record" reads SIC order 1.3.2016
SIC order further reads as: "In view of the above, order of the FAA is upheld and as directed by FAA, BDO, Kharaballi (PIO) is directed to intimate date and time of inspection of relevant records to the appellant within a weeks' time and take relevant extracts on payment of prescribed fee for inspection and copying as per RTI rules, 2012 . BDO, Kharaballi further submitted that the earlier notices served to the appellant were received by other members of his family, but appellant denied of having received any notice. In view of this, BDO, Kharaballi, PIO shall inform date and time of inspection of records/information to the applicant on his.mobile number. |
