news details |
|
|
| SIC puts PIO Hospitality & Protocol on penalty notice | | |
Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Sept 28: The State Information Commission (SIC) has issued a show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Hospitality and Protocol Department wherein he has been asked to give explanation why the penalty proceedings may not be initiated against him for making un necessary delay in providing information to an RTI applicant and also providing the incomplete information .
As per details available a complaint was filed by one Pawan Gupta, a resident of Roop Nagar Jammu the under Section 15 of the State RTI Act before the State Information Commission (SIC) against the PIO Directorate of Hospitality and Protocol which was received in the SIC on 15.07.2013. The case was heard at the SIC Srinagar office on 11.09. 2013.
The information seeker (RTI applicant) Pawan Gupta who is a contractor by profession seeker filed an RTI application under Section 6 before the said PIO on 6.4.2013. As per Section 7 of the State RTI Act, PIO had to pass an order as expeditiously as possible but not later than 30 days which is a outer limit for passing orders under the State RTI Act providing or refusing the information. By not passing order within the time limit prescribed under the Act, the information which otherwise is giveable under the Act is deemed to have been refused.
The PIO stated before the SIC that order was passed on 29.5.2013. The Information seeker vide his complaint in the SIC dated: 3.7.2013 on oath informed the Commission that the information provided by the PIO is incomplete and incorrect and has requested the Commission (SIC) for directing the PIO to provide correct information and also initiate strict action against the violators of the RTI Act.
The order Chief Information Commissioner GR Sufi reads:
"Since the PIO has not provided information to the information seeker within time and caused delay in providing the information that too incomplete. The information so provided is also incomplete. He is accordingly directed to explain why penalty under Section 17 of the State RTI Act may not be imposed on him. His reply , if any, must reach this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order."
The order further reads that the Information seeker has also not followed the correct procedure laid down in the Act. He should have filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The mandate of the Section 15 of the State RTI Act is limited in view of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Manipur V/s State of Manipur and another in Civil Appeal No: 10787-10788 of 2011. By not approaching the FAA, the office of FAA becomes redundant and it is mandatory for the information seeker to approach the FAA and then approach the Commission in appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
