news details |
|
|
| As applicants withdraw applications, SIC calls it abuse of RTI Law | | | Early Times Report
Budgam, July 27: As three applicants withdrew their RTI application from the office of Block Development Officers (BDO) office in Budgam after alleged favours from the officials of Rural Development Department , the State Information Commission (SIC) called it sheer abuse of Right to Information Act (RTI) by the information seekers.
Details available with Early Times reveal that 2nd appeal was filed on 06.12.2017 jointly filed by four persons namely Mohammad Ali Bhat, Sikander Hussain, Manzoor Ahmad Dar and Syed Nasir Hussain before the PIO/BDO, Budgam seeking information on 13 queries as mentioned in the said RTI application.
As there was inaction of the PIO, the applicants filed a joint First Appeal before the Director, Rural Development Department, Kashmir (First Appellate Authority -FAA) on 15.01.2018. The FAA vide Order Dated DRDK/69/2017 18/35610-12 Dated 12.03.2018 disposed of the First Appeal,with the following directions:
"Now in the spirit of the Act, it is hereby ordered that Block Development Officer (PIO) after ascertaining the authentic status of BPL ration card of the applicant shall despatch the full information as sought by the appellants/information seekers through registered post without any charges, immediately after receiving this order." In view of the failure of the PIO in providing the appellants the requisite information even after the orders of the Director Rural Development Kashmir who is also the First Appellate Authority FAA in this case , the appellants filed the 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on 15.03.2018 requesting therein that the BDO Budgam who is also the designated PIO be directed to provide them the requisite information and penalty as per provisions of the Act may be imposed upon the PIO for not providing them the information within the specified time as per provisions of the RTI law. The 2nd appeal came up for hearing on 14.05.2018. appellant Muhammad Ali Bhat attended the hearing. The respondent PIO (BDO Budgam) did not attend.
During the proceedings, the appellant stated that he had sought information from the PIO/BDO, Budgam through his RTI application on 06.12.2018, but the same was not provided to him and the PIO demanded a sum of Rs 50,000/ as fee for providing the information even though the appellant had submitted the BPL ration card as a proof that the RTI applicant being BPL, is entitled to received information free of cost in term of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that the PIO failed to provide the requisite information in spite of the orders of the Director RDD Kashmir (FAA).
Since the PIO was not present, the allegations remained unrebutted. The hearing in the 2nd appeal was adjourned with directions to the PIO to be present in person before the Commission on the next date of hearing, failing which it shall be presumed that the allegations levelled by the appellant are true. The PIO was also directed to file written statement before the next date of hearing.
The appeal again came up for hearing on 13.06.2018. Mr Abdul Basit, PIO/AD (Planning) in the office of Directorate of Rural Development Department, Kashmir and appellant Mohammad Ali Bhat attended the hearing. The PIO/BDO Budgam was again absent. During the proceedings, it came to fore that the PIO/BDO Budgam not only failed to provide the information to the appellant but also has been avoiding the hearing of the appeal before the Commission.
In the 2nd appeal SIC ordered : "From the pleadings made during the different dates of hearing, the Commission felt that the purpose of filing the RTI application and the present appeal by the applicants was to secure certain personal benefits in the matter of release of payments of the works executed by the applicants in Block Budgam. Three of the the applicants have perhaps been accommodated by the PIO with theresult two of these have withdrawn the RTI application and the 3rd has admitted to have received the information. There is no doubt that the applicants have not come with clean hands before theCommission in this appeal. This is an example of abuse of the provisions of the RTI Act, and an attempt of using the RTI mechanism for securing personal benefits.The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the PIO to provide information to the remaining applicant namely Mohammad Ali Bhat " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
