Delay in providing information under RTI Act
Warns Tehsildar for lapses, asks him to study transparency law
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Apr 10: Central Information Commission (CIC) has sought explanation from the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of the Health and Education Departments of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for delay in furnishing information to the applicants under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and for their absence during the course of proceedings in the Second Appeals. Further, the Commission has warned one Tehsildar for lapses and asked him to acquaint himself about the provisions of the transparency law.
As per the case before the Central Information Commission, an RTI application was filed on May 26, 2022 seeking information about Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) Scheme and list of beneficiaries in Manjakote block of Rajouri district.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Aggrieved by non-receipt of the reply from the PIO within the prescribed time limit, the appellant filed First Appeal dated June 27, 2022 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, he knocked the doors of the Central Information Commission with Second Appeal.
However, during the proceedings neither appellant nor the respondent was present. However, from the perusal of the facts on record the Commission observed, “prima-facie it appears no reply has been provided within the stipulated time-frame by the Public Information Officer”.
While directing the PIO to provide reply to the appellant free of the cost within 15 days from the receipt of order and submit compliance report, the CIC took very strong exception to the non-attendance of PIO during the hearing of Second Appeal. “In view of the prima-facie observation that no reply has been provided by the PIO qua the RTI Application within the stipulated time-frame, the PIO is directed to file a written explanation justifying the conduct failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him”, read the order issued by the Chief Information Commission Heeralal Samariya.
“The PIO is further directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him”, the order further read.
In another Second Appeal pertaining to denial of information by the Education Department of J&K UT, the Commission observed, “the appellant has stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date although RTI application was filed on May 25, 2022. Moreover, he had filed a First Appeal but the same was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority”.
Taking serious note of non-appearance of the PIO during hearing without intimating any reason, the Commission observed, “perusal of records and submission made by the appellant reveal that no reply has been provided by the PIO qua the RTI application within the stipulated time-frame”, adding “the PIO is directed to file a written explanation justifying the conduct failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) will be initiated against him”.
Further, the Commission has directed the PIO to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him. Moreover, the CIC has directed the PIO to provide a point-wise reply with regard to the information sought in the RTI application to the appellant free of cost within 15 days.
Similar was the fate of RTI application filed on May 27, 2023 seeking information about digging in Ravi River by M/s Sai Stone Crusher, Gandyal. During the hearing of Second Appeal, the appellant submitted that the information furnished by the PIO was misleading and false. However, the respondent Tehsildar Kathua stated that as per the official record there is no such stone crusher at village Gandyal.
At the outset, the Commission expressed displeasure over the conduct of the PIO in having provided late reply to the RTI application. The Commission has warned the PIO to remain extremely careful in future and acquaint himself about the RTI Act, 2005 so that such lapses don’t recur.
However, keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made during hearing the Commission said, “appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided by the respondent since only such information that is held and available with a Public Authority can be provided to the information seekers”.
“No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under RTI Act”, read the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
