news details |
|
|
| SIC puts Registrar High Court on penalty notice | | |
Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Oct 10: In a very significant order issued by the State Information Commission (SIC) against the higher Judiciary, the Registrar (Judicial) of J&K High Court Srinagar who is also the designated Public Information Officer (PIO) under State RTI Act 2009 for JK High Court has been asked by the SIC as to why the penalty proceedings under section 17 of JK RTI Act 2009 may not be initiated against him for not providing information under State RTI Act to an RTI applicant from Srinagar. In addition to it the SIC order has also sought objections from the Registrar (Judicial) as to why compensation to the tune of Rs 25,000 may not be paid to the RTI applicant who suffered a lot due to the unnecessary delay caused by the PIO .
As per details available one Saqib Faheem from Srinagar had filed application under RTI Act more than a year back before the PIO (Registrar Judicial) of JK High Court . The Information was not provided to the applicant and the case landed in SIC . The PIO in his statement had told SIC that his office had not received the RTI application which was mailed to his office via speed post . The RTI applicant filed another RTI application before office of the Senior Post Master Srinagar who confirmed that the speed post letter was delivered in the office of Registrar( Judicial ) JK High Court on 23rd May 2012 .
The case was heard on Tuesday October 8, 2013 by the Chief Information Commissioner GR Sufi. Saqib Faheem, the complainant produced documentary evidence from Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Posts India, Office of Senior Post Master Srinagar. This evidence has been obtained by the complainant in response to his RTI application made before PIO-cum- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Srinagar Division.
According to SIC order, "He is required to explain why, in view of the evidence brought on record, the Commission will not take action as provided under Section 17 read with Section 15 of the State RTI Act. His attention is also invited to complainant's assertion that in view of continued denial of information to him and "misleading" statements of the PIO, he has suffered a determent, therefore, he claims suitable compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000 to be awarded in his favour for the loss and determent as well as hard toil and labour put forth by him in leading the evidence before the Commission."
The Commission has also made available a copy of Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Government of India Ministry of Tourism V/s Chief Information Commissioner for the PIOs perusal and information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
