Early Times Report
Jammu, May 7: The State Information Commission (SIC) has issued notice in favour of Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) Rajouri as he failed to dispose off an appeal filed under J&K RTI Act 2009. The ACD in addition to his own job is also designated First Appellate Authority (FAA) under RTI Act. The ADC was supposed to dispose of the RTI appeal by calling appellant as well as the PIO, but this was not done, and the matter was taken seriously by Information Commission.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Bilal Ahmad R/O village Samote, Rajouri filed 2nd appeal under JK RTI Act 2009 on 25.02.2016 before State Information Commission (SIC). He alleges that he filed RTI application under rule 4(1)with the PIO/BDO, Budhal on 31.12.2015, seeking information on 10 queries related to works executed by BDO Budhal.
That after a delay of more than 30 days he has not got any reply from PIO and, filed First Appeal before ACD, Rajouri on 04.01.2016, in reference to his RTI application. That after the stipulated period of 45 days, he got an intimation from FAA with directions to PIO to issue information within 02 days, with penalty of Rs. 250/- per day after the stipulated period. Thereafter, he approached the concerned office several times who advised him to file 2nd appeal to the concerned authority. Accordingly 2nd appeal was filed seeking justice as well as disposal of his RTI application.
In response to notice of the State Information Commission (SIC) dated: 10.03.2016, BDO, Budhal has filed reply/counter statement interalia, submitting that in response to the RTI application filed by the appellant in his office on 31.12.2015, appellant was intimated vide letter dated: 04.01.2015 (should be 04.01.2016 as per letter) to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,160/- as photostat and photograph charges so that the information is provided to applicant. The intimation letter was posted at the residential address of the applicant by BDO on 06.01.2015, vide RE No. 838384205). BDO submitted before SIC that applicant didn't respond to his office.
ACD, Rajouri vide letter dated: 06.02.2016, subsequently directed him to provide the information to applicant and in compliance to his directions, he again intimated applicant vide letter dated: 07.02.2016, to collect the information. BDO, Budhal concluded that inspite of the reminder, the applicant has neither deposited the required amount of photostat and photograph charges, nor turned up to collect the information asked vide RTI application.
SIC order 26.4.2016 reads as: "As per documentary evidence brought before the Commission, the RTI application filed by appellant dated: 31.12.2015, has been responded to by PIO on 06.01.2015, through registered post asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,160/- on account of photostat and photograph charges. This communication has been sent through prescribed mode of service on the address of appellant and within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of RTI application as per requirement of section 7 of the Act. Evidently, response of PIO dated: 04.01.2016, intimating appellant to deposit the copying charges through prescribed mode of service on 06.01.2016, is in accordance with the provisions of section 7(3)(a) of the Act.The Commission further directs FAA (ACD) to ensure that appeals filed before him are decided as per provisions of section 16 of the Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. In view of facts stated hereinabove, the appeal filed before the Commission is devoid of merit and is disposed of". |
