news details |
|
|
| Challan yet to be produced in 9-yr-old Rural Electrification Scam | | SIC asks SVO to expedite efforts for vacating stay order | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Aug 2: The State Information Commission (SIC) in an interesting order has asked the State Vigilance Organisation (SVO) to expedite its efforts to get a stay vacated from the High Court with regard to a high profile corruption case (Rural Electrification scam) registered almost nine years back. An employee from Rural Development department who is also one of the accused in the case has pleaded his innocence before many forums and to get justice he used RTI act to get the information from SVO and Forensic Science laboratory.
As the matter is subjuidice since last many years the SIC upheld the orders of the PIO's of SVO as well as Forensic Science lab but asked the SVO to make sure it vacates the stay order from High Court
As per details available one Hakeem Tanveer filed a second appeal against the denial of information sought by him vide his RTI application from PIO(s) of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu and State Vigilance Organization vide his RTI application.
The PIO submitted that the information related to FIR No: 19/2005 which was registered against the officers/officials of Rural Dev. Deptt Baramulla regarding non execution of electrification works could not be provided as the matter was stayed by a competent court.
Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant pleaded before the FAA's for ordering the disclosure of information. The FAA(s) did not find favour with the appellant's submissions and upheld the order of the respective PIO(s). Again being not satisfied with the orders of FAA(s), the appellant approached State Information Commission (SIC) but the PIOs order was upheld.
As per the SIC order, "The Vigilance Organization has been stopped from proceeding further because of the stay of the Hon'ble J&K High Court in this case. Hence, report of the police officer could not be produced before the Magistrate. Section 173 (8) reproduced above has clearly laid down that the Magistrate has powers to order for further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate.
Thus, it is established that the investigation in the case is not complete and the case strictly falls under the provisions of section 8 (1) (g) of the State RTI Act. Therefore, any disclosure of information at this stage would definitely affect the process of investigation and it would ultimately negate the purpose and rationale of the State RTI Act as laid down in the preamble of the Act which has been reproduced above. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed before this Commission for disclosure of information is hereby rejected and orders of the PIO and FAA of Vigilance Organization are upheld". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
