Complaint No. 119/SIC/2012 Decided on: 28/10/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 119/SIC/2012

Decided on: 28/10/2014

Gautam Pednekar,

O/o. F-7, First Floor,

Elzira Commercial Complex,

Angod, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. ---- Complainant

V/s

Executive Engineer (Training) /Public Information Officer

O/o. Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department,

Vidyut Bhavan Third Floor,

Panaji – Goa. ---- Opponents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 19/06/2012

Transferred under sec 6(3) :22/06/2012

Deemed PIO reply dated : 23/07/2012

First Appeal filed on : NIL

FAA Order dated : NIL

Complaint Filed on : 02/08/2012

1) This is a typical case where enormous information was asked under the RTI Act which completely frustrate the objective of paying due attention to limited financial resources of the Government. The questions asked at 1(a) to 1(j) will require information for virtually every minute of working of a Junior Engineer Shri Savio Fernandes and also the information on every Rupee spent on him, since the date of joining of his service and that too in most minute details such as Dress Code and uniform expenses of his Drivers. Similarly there are several questions asked about all details of shifting of some electricity poles. Similarly it asked questions about several details of other Junior Engineers regarding the details of the work carried out by them, such as how many electricity poles they shifted how many wires they shifted, how much the defacement of Electricity poles etc was noted before replacing them etc. These are asked from Question 1(k) to 1(t), 2(a) to 2(o), 3(a) to 3(m), 4(a) to 4(l), 5(a) to 5(l) and question 6,7 and 8.

2) The Complainant remained absent throughout the matter except on the first date of hearing namely 26/09/2012.When the post of SCIC was vacant. Thereafter the office of the Commission gave adjournments till the joining of present SCIC. However the Complainant remained continuously absent and even after a last chance notice was issued to him on 18/09/2014 he did not attend.

Contd----2/-

--2—

3) Finally on 28/08/2014 when the case was taken up for hearing it was noticed that this Complaint memo is incomplete on following counts-

• No reason is given why he did not approach FAA.
• Not present on any date even after last chance notice.

4) The deemed PIO had served notices under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to all those third Parties about whom information was asked and they had not given the concurrence. Hence the information was rejected by quoting section 8(1)(j) and 8(1) (e) and because no larger public interest has been shown by the applicant.

5) The PIO has also cited the Supreme Court Judgement in Civil No. 6454 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 7526/2009)

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

“Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information ( unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure on the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties”.

“The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.”

Contd----3/-

---3---

6) On the last date of hearing on 28/10/2014 representative of PIO orally submits that another reply was sent to Complainant on 04/12/2012 quoting the Supreme Court Judgement This explains the disinterest of the Complainant.

As per the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court nothing is found prejudicial to the employer about the conduct or acts of the above named employees.

--O R D E R--

In view of above, the complaint is dismissed as lacking merit. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

( Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.