Complaint No.88/SCIC/2013 Decided on 11/12/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

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

Coram : Smt. LeenaMehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No.88/SCIC/2013

Decided on 11/12/2014

Shri Ashok Dessai

R/o. 309, 3^rd floor,

Damodar Phase-II, Near Police Station,

Margao, Goa ……Complainant

V/s

Miss Triveni Velip/Public Information Officer

Collectorate Building, South

Margao, Goa. ……Respondents

O R D E R (OPEN COURT)

RTI application dated : -15/05// 2013

PIO reply on : -26/08/2014

Complaint filed on : -21/06/2013

This Complaint application filed on 21/06/2013 arises from RTI application No. 5 dated 15/05/2013 made to the PIO and the Mamlatdar of Salcete at Margao Goa. The information sought for pertains to certain Mundkarial rights which are allegedly denied to one Mr. Antonio Mariano Furtado and his father.

An Interim order was passed by SCIC on 20/05/2014, whereafter the present PIO and Mamlatdar of Salcete has filed a reply on 26/08/2014, making following points.

• The Complaint should be dismissed.
• The RTI application dated 15/05/2013 was forwarded to Joint Mamlatdar, Salcete. The Joint Mamlatdar who is also APIO has given a reply on 12/06/2013 by RPAD clearly mentioning the subject matter showing it pertains to Complaint. The postal acknowledgment discloses that the reply has been received by the Complainant on 15/06/2013.
• The Complaint is filed on 21/06/2013 and it falsely states at Para 2 that the Opponent PIO has not provided the information within 30 days i.e before 14/06/2013. “ The information was provided on 12/06/2013. There is no bar that the APIO cannot send a reply”.

----2----

-----2----

I have seen the contents of the Complaint application as well as the reply filed by the present PIO. I have observed this frequently in case of the present Complainant as well as in respect of some other Complainants that they have misinterpreted Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 7(1) provides that the PIO “on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9”.

The Complainant has been interpreting it as if the reply has to reach to the RTI applicant within 30 days. It is to be understood that the time period of 30 days mentioned in Section 7(1) is the time granted to the PIO for proper disposal of the RTI application. Hence the applicant should always show some restraint before filing immediate First Appeal or Complaint as soon as the period of 30 days is over.

In the instant case the PIO has rightly claimed that the Complainant has not approach the SCIC with clean hands. He has not disclosed the receipt of the letter from the Joint Mamlatdar received on 15/06/2013., when the reply given by Joint Mamlatdar clearly states that it is a reply to his application under RTI Act dated 15/05/2013.

From the contents of the reply filed by PIO on 26/08/2014 before SCIC, it is clear that the letter dated 12/06/2013 from APIO is an information regarding the queries asked. Hence the prayer of PIO that the Complaint may be dismissed has merit.

I agree with the contention of the PIO with a small comment that in future the PIO should be more prompt in replying to the first notice issued by SCIC. Had that been, done the need for passing. Interning Order as was passed on 25/05/2014 would not have arisen.

------Order------

As per above the Complaint is dismissed as lacking merit. Parties may be informed.

Sd/-

( Leena Mehendale)

State Chief Information Commissioner

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji- Goa.