news details |
|
|
| CIC snubs MD, issues penalty notice against PIO Horticulture | | MD HPMC files RTI application, withdraws | | Srinagar, Aug 13: In a very interesting case the Managing Director of J&K Horticulture Production and Marketing Corporation Limited (HPMC) had filed an application under Right to Information Act (RTI) related to his personal service matter before the Administrative Department ie Horticulture Department Civil Secretariat some months back but after some time he took his application back after filing an affidavit. But again filed 1st and 2nd appeals before Commissioner Secretary Horticulture and State Information Commission (SIC).
As the matter was listed for final hearing before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi on 4.8.2014 , the CIC castigated the PIO Horticulture department civil Secretariat as well as MD HPMC (RTI appellant) and clearly mentioned in his orders that there is no provision under J&K RTI Act 2009 to take back an RTI application. The PIO was served the penalty notice as well for unnecessarily delaying the supply of information under RTI.
Case details:
As per details available with Early Times Syed Rafiq Ahmad, Managing Director, J&K HPMC Ltd filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) against the inaction of PIO Horticulture Department civil secretariat Srinagar to provide the information and failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to adjudicate the appeal emanating from the RTI application.
The Commission heard both, the PIO and the appellant from time to time. Brief grounds of the appeal are that the appellant Syed Rafiq Ahmad (MD HPMC) had filed an RTI application on 5.11.2013 but the requisite fees of rupees ten has been deposited on 10.12.2013.
Hence, date of filing the RTI application was reckoned from the date of depositing of fees.
The appellant vide his RTI application had sought certain information with regard to his employment in JKHPMC Ltd. The PIO had to pass an order within 30 days i.e on 10.01.2014. However, no such order was passed.
During the hearing of this case before Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi the PIO did insist before the Commission that the appellant (MD HPMC) had later on withdrawn his RTI application by submitting an affidavit, therefore, no information was given. The so called affidavit was received on 21.1.2014 in the office of PIO. The PIO has accordingly, vide her communication dated: 22.4.2014 addressed to the Commission (SIC) , taken the plea that in view of submission of affidavit, no action was taken on RTI application.
The Commission considered these facts. The only point before the Commission for consideration was whether on the date of expiry of 30 days, the appellant's right to information was alive and operative. The last date for passing the order on RTI application was 10.1.2014. The so called affidavit has been received in PIO's office on 21.1.2014. " Thus, it is established that this is beyond the date of passing the order. The Commission, therefore, rejects the contention of the PIO that the appellant had withdrawn his RTI application.
The right to information has to be honored as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 days. In this case, 30 days elapsed on 10.1.2014.
Therefore this has no legal value and the Commission does not take any cognizance of such affidavit. Secondly, in the State RTI Act read with Rules, there is no provision for withdrawing the RTI application and thus "entering into so called compromises" with the erring officials" reads the SIC order.
SIC 's penalty notice against PIO:
The SIC order further reads as : "The PIO is directed to provide the information was asked by the appellant vide his RTI application within eight days from the receipt of this order and also explain why penalty proceedings may not be initiated against her as provided under Section 17 of the State RTI Act, Her reply, if any, must reach the Commission within 10 days from the receipt of this order.
The Commission would also like to remind the FAA about his role as a quasi -judicial authority who has to discharge within a maximum period of 45 dayswhich he has not done. Under Section 16 of the State RTI Act, the FAA is saddled with a legal responsibility to adjudicate the appeals as a quasi-judicial authority and dispose of the same. It is the public duty cast on the FAA under the relevant provisions of law and if there is consistent failure of the such quasi -judicial authority for discharging his public duties, the Commission may be constrained to initiate consequential legal action against such defaulting public authority"
Warning to MD HPMC (appellant):
While warning the MD HPMC not to use RTI for pressure tactics the SIC order reads as : "The appellant is also advised to use his right to information with care and caution and do not treat his right as a right to pressurize the government officials/officers and keep them engaged in replying his multiple applications.
He should know that the RTI Act is silent for taking any unilateral action like withdrawing the RTI applications". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
