news details |
|
|
| Show- cause notices served to ADDC for unwarranted delay, flawed information | | RTI in MLA Nagrota's CDF issue | | Sumit Sharma
Jammu, Sept 26: Though, the Additional District Development Commissioner (ADDC), Jammu Rehana Batool who is also a PIO, in her defence may have bag full of words and trying to shift blame on her seniors and Finance Department to mislead her but she was served two show cause notices by State Information Commission (SIC).
Highly placed sources said that State Information Commission (SIC) vide SIC/CO/SA/42/2012/304 has questioned the ADDC Jammu why the penalty u/s 17 of the act shall not be taken upon her for inordinate delay to provide information to the information seeker, simultaneously, SIC served another show cause notice to her asking why fine under Code of Civil Procedure (1977) section 15 of the J&K RTI Act, 2009 shall not be imposed upon her for her non appearance before Commission on date of hearing.
It needs to mention here that the two notices were served to ADDC Jammu who also holds the chair of PIO, following the complainant namely advocate Kovid Khosla lodged 2nd appeal leveling certain allegations against her (PIO) including providing incorrect information after elapse of prescribed time frame.
The complainant in his RTI appeal has sought information regarding amount sanctioned to MLA Nagrota, Jammu Constituency Jugal Kishore from the year 2009 till date under the scheme of Constituency Development Fund (CDF). Besides this he also has sought the details i.e. name of agencies to which the amount has been paid, works executed in MLA's tenure in his constituency and balance amount after meeting expenses lying with the said MLA.
"ADDC was directed to appear before commission to clear her position, but she was failed to do so, sources said further adding, "earlier, in response to the SIC communiqué ADDC Jammu has shifted all responsibilities upon her seniors officers alleging that procedure followed against RTI application was wrong.
She further alleged that she received RTI application after elapse of time as the same travelled in Finance Department, Planning and Development Department and Divisional Commissioner’s office. She also showed her ignorance regarding first appeal adding she was allotted less time to procure information against the questions filed and deliver the same. However, in her defence she had stated in her reply that as the application was never forwarded to the PIO neither u/s 5(4)&5(5) of the RTI Act,2009 as such there is no culpability on the part of PIO in this matter .
Sources added the blame game started after SIC letter No SIC-CO/SA/42/2012/4059 issued direction to the ADDC to send reply of delay within seven days.
Finally disposing of the case , the commission besides serving show cause notices, has directed PIO to provide revised information to the information seeker, free of cost, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the commission.
Meanwhile, the Registrar General was directed to investigate why the concerned PIO failed to respond the notice issued by the registry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
