news details |
|
|
| RTI Act violation by HC PIO | | 3rd penalty show cause notice in 1 year by SIC | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Oct 18 : Designated under J&K RTI Act 2009, Public Information Officers (PIOs) in the state High Court (HC) have allegedly not been adhering to the provisions of the Act. The State Information Commission (SIC) had earlier issued two penalty show cause notices against the HC PIO in October last year in the matter of Saqib Faheem v/s PIO, J&K High Court, and in May this year in a case titled Parvez Ahmad Parray v/s PIO, J&K High Court .
The SIC has now issued a third penalty show cause notice against the Registrar Judicial who is also the HC PIO for violating the J&K Right to Information Act by not providing information to an information seeker within stipulated time of 30 days.
The case titled Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat v/s HC PIO came for hearing before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi at Srinagar on August 13, 2014. Taking a serious note of the continuous violation of RTI Act , the CIC ordered for issuance of a show cause notice against the PIO at Srinagar.
As per the details available with Early Times, Dr Raja Muzaffar of Gopalpora, Budgam, had sought details from HC Registrar Judicial (Srinagar wing) about the material considered declaring "three sitting district judges as dead wood and their consequential premature retirement".
"I filed this RTI application on December 3, 2013 , and instead of providing the information within 30 days , I was made to wait for eight months when I moved a complaint under section 15 of J&K RTI Act 2009 before the State Information Commission (SIC) at Srinagar. The PIO responded after he got a notice from SIC," he said.
Pertinent to mention that in a very significant order issued by SIC last year, the HC PIO was asked by SIC as to why the penalty proceedings under section 17 of J&K RTI Act 2009 may not be initiated against him for not providing information under the RTI Act to the applicant.
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 .
One Saqib Faheem from Srinagar had filed application under RTI Act more than a year back before the HC PIO. 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 ), High Court, on May 23, 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
