news details |
|
|
| `Don't provide voluminous information under RTI' | | | Jammu, Aug 21: The State Information Commission (SIC) while issuing a significant order has said that voluminous information sought under Right to Information Act, cannot be provided by a public authority as it will divert the resources of the organization.
As per details available one Fayaz Khan, Advocate, J&K High Court, Jammu moved an application dated 19-11-2013 before the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Irrigation Division, Canal Road, Jammu under Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 where-under he sought certain information with respect to NIT publication details and direct purchases from the market etc.
The PIO furnished the requisite information to the information seeker vide office no. TWID/J/4631-33 dated 14-12-2013 within the statutory period as prescribed under the J&K RTI Act, 2009. The information was posted to the appellant on 16-12-2013 and after that the postman regularly went to the High Court address given by the appellant on 17-12-2013, 18-12-2013, 19-12-2013 & 20-12-2013 and the same was returned back to the PIO/Executive Engineer, Tube-well Irrigation Division, Jammu with an endorsement that the appellant was not found on that address. In the counter reply filed before the Commission, the PIO has submitted that the aforesaid fact was intimated to the appellant on phone and again the envelope was sent at C/o Insha Medical Hall, Shahidi Chowk, Jammu on 26-12-2013 which was returned with the endorsement that the person / firm refused to accept the same.
However, the appellant filed 1st appeal before the 1st appellate authority (FAA) ie , Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Jammu which was disposed of vide Order No. 11612-14 dated 03-01-2014. The 1st appellate authority has recorded in its decision that the requisite information was handed over to the applicant during the course of proceedings and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the 1st appellate authority(FAA) preferred 2nd appeal dated 18-03-2014 before the Commission. After receiving the 2nd appeal, matter was listed for hearing on 30-04-2014. N.D. Qazi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and he was provided a set of counter statement filed by the PIO. The counsel for the appellant requested that he should be given sometime to go through the counter statement and prepare the case accordingly and requested for adjournment. Matter was listed for hearing at State Information Commission (SIC) on 22-05-2014, both the appellant and his counsel remained absent. In order to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant matter was adjourned by SIC and listed for hearing on 04-08-2014. Both the appellant and his counsel opted not to be present during the course of hearing despite the fact that a sufficient notice in advance was sent to the appellant at his address given in the RTI application informing him about the date of hearing.
The appellant was also contacted by the office of the Commission on telephone no.9018283565, but he did not respond to the call given to him says SIC order .
"The aforesaid facts reveal that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his 2nd appeal filed before the Commission in which he has alleged interalia that respondents have concealed the information relating to item no. 1 & 2 of the information sought by him in the RTI application. The counsel for the respondents vehemently denied the same and submitted that the information as available in office record has already been furnished to the information seeker " SIC order reads.
SIC order further reads as :
" Moreover, the information sought by the information seeker with regard to item no. 1 is voluminous in nature because there are eight large bundles pertaining to information sought by the appellant. The Commission therefore feels that imposing such a burden on the public authority to share the information which is voluminous in nature comprising of eight large bundles will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and paralyze its day to day functioning which is contrary to the mandate of the J&K RTI Act, 2009. The 2nd appeal is without merit, hence dismissed". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
