news details |
|
|
| SIC yet to execute penalty proceedings against BDO Budgam | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, Mar 28: The State Information Commission (SIC) is yet to execute the penalty proceedings against Block Development Officer (BDO) Budgam who had asked a poor villager to pay Rs 50,000 as Xerox fees in lieu of the information. Information Commissioner Mohammad Ashraf Mir had initiated penalty proceedings against BDO Budgam around two months back, but till date the officer is yet to be penalized.
Details available with Early Times reveal that BDO Budgam had asked an RTI information seeker to pay Rs 50,000 as photocopying charges. The information seeker from a Budgam village had sought information on some developmental works executed in his village from last few years.
As reported already by Early Times, one Muhammad Abdullah Bhat of village Naroo, Budgam had filed an RTI application on 17.7.2017 seeking information from PIO/BDO Budgam with regard to the execution of works in village Naroo from 2011-12 to March, 2017. Bhat had sought list of job card holders with details of works executed, payments disbursed under MG-NREGA, CD Panchayat, 13th/14th Finance Commission award, Education Sector and Ground Water executed through Rural development Department.
As no information was provided by the PIO (BDO Budgam), the appellant filed first appeal on 26-08-2017 with Deputy Commissioner, Budgam (First Appellate Authority). The FAA vide its order dated 12-09-2017 rejected the appeal on the ground that the PIO had conveyed to the appellant to deposit tentative amount of Rs. 50,000 as copying charges and the applicant has failed to deposit the same for getting the information from the PIO. Finally, the appellant filed second appeal before the SIC against the PIO for not furnishing the information and also challenging the rejection order of the FAA.
The appellant pleaded that he never received letter dated 02- 08-2017 from PIO where under the PIO claims to have asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000. The Commission vide notice dated 06-11-2017 directed the PIO/FAA to file reply/counter statement to the 2nd appeal within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. On failure to file any counter/reply by the PIO/FAA, the Commission again directed them vide notice dated 14-12-2017 to file their reply/counter objections and also appear 3 before the Commission on 29-12-2017.
The matter was listed before the Commission on 29-12-2017, but nobody appeared on behalf of PIO and FAA inspite the notices issued. The appellant appeared before the Commission and submitted that the PIO has not provided any information to him. He also denied to have received any communication from PIO asking the appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000 as copying charges. The appellant also submitted that the FAA did not give any opportunity of being heard to him before disposing of his first appeal. After hearing the appellant and going through the record submitted before the SIC , the Commission vide its interim order dated 29-12- 2017 issued the following directions:-
1. The PIO is directed to explain as to how he has calculated the tentative cost of copying charges as Rs. 50,000/- when the information sought pertained to just one village namely Naroo. He is also directed to submit the copy of the letter alongwith the postal evidence through which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 as copying charges.
2. The PIO is also directed to explain as to why he failed to attend the hearing today despite the fact he was informed through prescribed mode of service to attend the hearing.
3. The PIO is further directed to file his counter statement to this appeal well before the next date of hearing, failing which it 4 shall be presumed that whatever has been stated by the appellant in his appeal is true.
"The PIO has also failed to explain how he calculated tentative cost of copying charges as Rs. 50,000 when the information sought by the appellant pertained to just one village namely Naroo. The PIO also did not submit the copy of the letter dated 02-08-2017 alongwith the postal evidence proving that the said letter was sent/dispatched to the appellant. Since the PIO has failed to produce the communication and the postal receipt of having sent the said communication to the appellant, the claim of the appellant that the said communication was never sent to him remains un-rebutted. The only presumption that arises on account of un-refuted claim of the appellant is that the PIO has not conveyed to the appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000 as copying charges and the claim of the PIO in this regard seems to be an afterthought to justify his failure to provide the information to the appellant. The Commission is pained to observe that the provisions of the Act and the directions of the SIC are being violated by the Public Authorities and its PIOs with impunity," reads SIC's order dated 23/1/2018.
The order further reads: "The registry is directed to initiate penalty proceedings in terms of Section 17 of the Act against the PIO/Block Development Officer, Budgam for failure to provide the information to the appellant within the stipulated period. The registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Public Authority viz. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Rural Development Department, J&K with the direction to issue necessary instructions to all the PIOs and FAAs under his administrative control for complying with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit. The PIO is also directed to provide the information as sought by the appellant through his RTI application dated 17-07- 2017 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations, the 2nd appeal is disposed of. " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
