Complaint No. 85 86 87 89/SIC/2013 Decided on 20/05/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 85/SIC/2013

Complaint No. 86/SCIC/2013

Complaint No. 87/SIC/2013

Complaint No. 89/SIC/2013

Decided on: 20/05/2014

Shri Ashok Desai,

309, 3^rd floor,

Damodar Phase – II

Near Police Station,

Margao – Goa. ------ Complainant

V/S

Miss. Triveni Velip

The Public Information Officer,

The Mamlatdar of Salcete,

Collectorate, South Building,

Margao- Goa. ------ Opponent.

O R D E R

Complainant filed RTI application no.1 dated 15/5/2013 in office of PIO and Mamlatdar of Salcete. The origin of this RTI application is the request application filed by Mr. Antonio Mariano Furtado filed before the Mamlatdar on 27/7/2011 with a request to issue certificate of purchase/Sanad in respect of Mundakarial property surveyed under survey no. 165 of Village Benaulim. The Complainant asked questions numbering 1 & 18.

The complainant also separately filed another RTI application to the same PIO on the same date 15/5/2013 naming it as application no. 2 asking identical questions no. 1 to 18 in regard to the very same request application of Antonio Furtado dated 27/7/2011.

…2/-

-- 2 –

He has also filed in exactly identical manner another RTI application naming it as RTI application no. 3 with the same questions and for the same property. He has also filed the application no. 4 in the exactly same manner. He has also filed the application no. 5 in the same manner.

It is not clear as to what prompts the complainant who is himself an advocate, to file 5 identical applications concerning the same issue and that too on the same day to the same PIO. I would refrain from saying anything more about such behavior except for mentioning that it definitely causes hardship to the PIO and wastes time of everyone concerned.

His RTI applications nos. 1,2,3,4,5 all dated 15/5/2013 have also resulted in one complaint application each before the Commission, all filed on 21/06/2013 and they have been registered as complaint No. 85,86,87,88 &89 ( but not in the same order).

A separate judgment has been passed in case No. 88/SCIC/2013. Hence these remaining complaint applications No. 85/SIC/2013, 86/SCIC/2013, 87/SIC/2013 and 89/SIC/2013 are dismissed as repetitive. Parties to be informed.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Panaji – Goa.