news details |
|
|
| PIOs ignore penalty notices from SIC | | |
Early Times Report
Srinagar, Oct 31: It is shocking that many Public Information Officers (PIOs) against whom penalty show cause notices have been issued by the State Information Commission (SIC) for violating RTI Act have not at all responded to the notices of the commission.
As per reliable sources there are many officers against whom penalty show cause notices under section 16 of J&K RTI Act 2009 have been issued from last 3 years by the Information Commission , have not at all responded. In addition to there are dozens of cases wherein the response has been totally wrong and misleading. In addition to it commission has not even penalized 1 % of these officers who were served with penalty notices.
Early this year State Information Commission (SIC) issued penalty show cause notice against the Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) Kishtwar along with 4 Block Development Officers (BDO's) for violating provisions of State RTI Act by not providing information to an information seeker within 30 days time, but their response has been unsatisfactory and not even one officer among them was actually penalized.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one Ashfaq Ahmed Wani, a resident of Shokeen Mohalla Doda filed 2nd appeal before State Information Commission (SIC) on 06.12.2015, stating therein that he had filed an RTI application dated: 06.07.2015 before Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD), Kishtwar under section 6 of J&K RTI Act, 2009 seeking the following information about work done, work wise progress report, year wise expenditure, photocopy of cash book, all released fund expenditure of four blocks of Kishtwar namely Padder, Marwah, Dachan and Warwan. He also sought information of plants planted in these blocks along with expenditure on plantation , list of beneficiaries/ nurseries with details for the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The PIO-cum-Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) under section 7 of J&K RTI Act 2009 was required to pass an order, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 days i.e. the outer limit for passing an order. ACD failed to give response to the appellant within time. As the information seeker didn't receive any response from the PIO within stipulated time, he filed first appeal dated: 10.08.2015, received on 13.08.2015 by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) -cum-Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu. The First Appeal of the appellant was adjudicated vide order No. DRDJ/RTI-117/2015/37976-84 dated: 05.11.2015 with a direction to BDO, Marwah,Warwan, Dachan and Padder to provide the requisite information to the appellant, free of cost, within 07 days from the date of issue the order. Consequently, the appellant approached SIC with 2nd appeal . From the order of the FAA (Director RDD Jammu) it becomes evident that PIO-cum-ACD, Kishtwar transferred the application of the information seeker to the concerned BDOs under section 5(4) and 5(5) of RTI Act, 2009 but only after written directions from the FAA cum- Director, Rural Development Department Jammu and that too after the expiry of the stipulated time.
SIC's order 1.2.2016 reads as: "The PIO-cum-ACD, Kishtwar failed to act as per provisions of the J&K State RTI Act, 2009. He is accordingly directed to explain why penalty under section 17 of the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 may not be imposed on him for failing to give response to the information seeker strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Right to Information Act, 2009. His reply, if any, must reach this Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The officers whose assistance has been sought under section 5(4) and 5(5) of the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 were required to provide such assistance to the PIO in order to furnish information which has not been done. Invoking the provisions of law, the PIO-cum-BDO, Padder sought copying charges from the appellant vide his communication No. 18-20/RTI/BDOP dated: 28.07.2015. This was sent by speed post dated: 30.07.15. The information was to be given immediately after the receipt of payment but even after that the information was not given to the appellant. The information was finally given on 15.12.2015 when the appellant was already before the Commission vide his 2nd appeal dated: 06.12.2015. As there is no response by the PIOs-cum-BDOs (Marwah, Warwan, Dachan and Padder), therefore, the Commission treats them as PIOs in default in view of section 5 of J&K RTI Act, 2009 and they are accordingly directed to explain why penalty under section 17 of the Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 may not be imposed on them for failing to give response to the information seeker within the period prescribed under the Act. Their reply, if any, must reach this Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations the 2nd appeal is disposed of".
State Information Commission (SIC) is only in a habit of issuing notices to officers but the registry hardly follows up the case. The aforementioned officers have not at all given a satisfactory reply and that should be propped along with other cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
