news details |
|
|
| SIC dismisses appeal seeking Property Statement | | Questions credibility of RTI applicant? | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 26: State Information Commission (SIC) has dismissed an RTI appeal filed by Doda based contractor on the ground that there was no public interest involved in the case and the RTI applicant has been a habitual information seeker who seeks similar information from all the BDO offices in Doda from last several years. SIC also questioned the order of Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) Doda for not applying the mind while disposing off appeal of the contractor / RTI applicant. Details available with Early Times reveal that an RTI application was filed by one Haq Nawaz Nehru R/O Doda on 03.10.2017 before the PIO, Block Development Officer, Udhyanpur with regard to details of MGNREGA, 14th FC and SBM funds for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 for Panchayat Kulhand and also copies of property statements of one Mansoor Ahmad, VLW and also copies of his academic qualification. PIO, Block Development Officer (BDO) , Udyanpur Doda vide his communication dated 20.10.2017 directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.1500/- as photocopy charges so that the information sought by him could be provided. However, instead of depositing the photocopy charges, Haq Nawaz Nehru filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) Assistant Commissioner Development (ACD) Doda on 16.11.2017 requesting for appropriate directions to the PIO for providing the information. The FAA/ ACD Doda disposed of the appeal on 01.01.2018 with the directions to the PIO to provide the requisite information to the appellant within 10 days, but information was not provided.
The appellant finally filed the 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on 05.05.2018.
SIC in its order ruled that Such third party information cannot be disclosed by the PIO without following the due procedure as laid down in section 11 of the J&K RTI Act 2009. Besides, the appellant / applicant has to show existence of public interest in disclosure of the information relating to a third party in order to convince the PIO to disclose such information. Since the appellant has also not claimed to be a member of the BPL category and hence exempted from payment of charges / fees. As such the information cannot be provided to him if he has failed to deposit the photocopy charges which were duly communicated to him twice by the PIO within the specified period. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
