Early Times Report
Srinagar, May 15: In total violation of RTI rules, an information seeker from Surankot was asked to pay an amount of Rs 3,43,326 by the local Block Development Officer (BDO) as he intended to seek information about some works being executed under MG-NREGA in some villages of his block.
Details available with Early Times reveal that one ParvezShera R/O ChanniHimmat Jammu submitted an application under J&K RTI Act before PIO, Rural Engineering Wing (REW) , Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj, District Poonch through speed post on 16.09.2015, and the same was received in the office of PIO on 18.09.2015. The PIO failed to respond/provide information within the stipulated time. That feeling aggrieved appellant filed First Appeal before FAA on 19.10.2015 . That during pendency of First Appeal, appellant received a letter dated: 19.10.2015, from BDO, Surankote requesting appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,43,362/- as Photostat charges. That above cited letter dated: 19.10.2015, was received by appellant on 31.10.2015, i.e. after 45 days as is evident from detailed track event of letter downloaded from the official website of Indian Posts .
BDO, Surankote was informed by information seeker that his request to appellant asking to deposit Rs. 3,43,362/- is totally misplaced as the same is being asked after 45 days i.e. after stipulated period prescribed in the Act . The Director, Rural Development Jammu who is the FAA (First Appellate Authority) in this case while disposing the appeal vide order dated: 03.12.2015, has refused to provide information u/s 7(6) of the Act. That FAA in his order has directed PIO/Executive Engineer, REW, Poonch and BDO, Surankote to call appellant in their respective offices and show appellant the record pertaining to RTI application and if some information is still required, same may be provided on charges.
The appeal was decided on the basis of original application and request made therein u/s 6 of the Act and reply received thereto. The appellant vide his application did not request for an access to record but has asked for providing of record and even the Act says that information shall be provided in the form in which it is sought and the same gets corroborated by the letter of BDO, Surankote dated: 19.10.2015, wherein appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,43,362/-. That the FAA (Director RDD Jammu) found that the information is voluminous when it is to be provided under section 7(6) of the Act. The PIO and APIO do not find the information voluminous when it was to be provided under section 7(1) of the Act.
As per documents enclosed with the appeal filed before State Information Commission (SIC) , RTI application addressed to PIO, REW, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, District Poonch was sent through Indian post (speed post) on 16.09.2015 (delivered on 18.09.2015 as per tracking record), seeking following information:
(i) Copy of the service book of Ghulam Rasool, AEE, REW, Surankote.
(ii) Estimates of work executed under MGNREGA and allied sectors in Sub-Division, Surankote during the tenure of Sh. Ghulam Rasool as AEE, REW, Surankote.
(iii) Number and details of bills test checked by the concerned AEE viza- viz the work technically sanctioned and approved and how much of the work so done is existing on ground.
(iv) Details of MB's and their No's, including progress recorded.
In compliance to notice of the State Information Commission (SIC) , FAA Mr M.L. Raina, KAS, Director, Rural Development, Jammu filed a counter statement/reply to the appeal dated: 17.03.2016 (received on 22.03.2016) wherein he submitted that an appeal has been filed by appellant received in his office on 21.10.2015, against PIO, XEn7 Poonch/BDO, Surankote regarding non-furnishing of the requisite information under RTI Act. During hearing on 23.11.2015, appellant submitted that he has not received any kind of information from (XEN Poonch/BDO, Surankote). The appeal was examined by SIC and it was observed that information desired by appellant is voluminous & amount asked for deposit is huge, with no proper justification.
During proceedings at SIC Jammu on 26.04.2016, appellant ParvezShera submitted that the consignment under which RTI application dated: 16.09.2015, has been delivered on 18.09.2015, as per tracking record of Indian post. On the other hand R.K. Sharma, Executive Engineer, REW, Poonch and Mukhter Ahmed, BDO, Surankote submitted that the RTI application was received in ACD office on 23.09.2015, and in this regard respondents produced copy of letter dated: 28.09.2015, from PIO, office of Assistant Commissioner Development, Poonch to BDO, Surankote enclosing RTI application of the appellant, received on 23.09.2015. Executive Engineer, REW, Poonch produced copy of RTI application which has been marked as "received on 23.09.2015".
As per section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2009, "PIO on receipt of a request under section 6 shall in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request." Therefore, as per provisions of the Act, the date of receipt by the PIO is reckoned as reference for calculation of period, which in this case is 23.09.2015.
SIC order 26.4.2016 reads as:
" It is pertinent to refer here to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v/s AdityaBandopadhya (2011), wherein Hon'ble Court has held that "nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authority spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties." In view of the above, order passed by FAA asking PIOs to allow appellant inspection of records and provide required information on charges as admissible under RTI Act is upheld.
Appellant submitted that he is not a resident of Poonch and, therefore, it would not be possible for him to conduct the inspection of records as per orders of FAA. He further submitted that he has prima-facie information of irregularities in some specific works and submitted that he would seek information related to those specific works only. Accordingly appellant shall specify the points of information related to those works to ACD, Poonch within 10 days who shall transfer/forward it to respective BDOs for providing the information as held by them on payment of prescribed fee" |
