Penalty: 69/2010 In Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010 Decided on 14/04/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Penalty: 69/2010

In

Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010

Decided on 14/04/2014

Mr. Bharat Naik Candolkar,

S/o Laxman Naik Candolkar,

Resident of Vaddi, Candolim ----- Complainant

Bardez- Goa.

V/s

The Secretary/Public Information Officer,

Office of , Village Panchayat, ----- Opponent

Candolim, Bardez, Goa,

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 20/01/2010

PIO replied : 17/02/2010

First Appeal filed on : 18/03/2010

First Appellate Authority Order in

Appeal No. 331/2010 on 03/05/2010

Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010 filed on : 07/06/2010

SCIC Order in complaint on : 09/12/2010

Penalty notice under Section 20 (1) : 18/12/2010

The First Appellate Authority has observed as below:

“In the Reply of the Respondent, it is not made clear by the Respondent that information pertaining to all points is furnished or not. I have gone through the Appeal, replies filed by both the parties and the arguments advanced by them. It is confirmed that the full information pertaining to point No. 1 to 15 has not been furnished which has been admitted by the Respondent. Therefore I hereby Order to the Respondent to furnish the information to the Appellant point wise in respect of the application dated 20/1/2010 made by the Appellant within 10 days from the date of passing this Order”

2/-

-2-

In the second appeal, the SCIC has taken note of it and has ordered as below on 09/12/2010 “Respondent to furnish the information in respect of point No. 10 to 15. Complaint is partly allowed. The opponent is hereby directed to furnish the information to point No. 10 to 15 of the application of the Complainant dated 20/01/2010 within fifteen days from the receipt of this order.

Issue notice under section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act to opponent/PIO to show cause why penalty action should not be taken against him for causing delay in furnishing the information”.

When the matter was proceeded under Section 20(1), some information was filed by then PIO on 04/01/2011 which inter-alia also contains a copy of the reply given by the Village Panchayat Candolim, Bardez- Goa to the Complainant on 03/01/2011. Thereafter the PIO also filed reply to the show cause notice on 07/01/2011. Thereafter the Respondent PIO remained present on some occasion and his advocate A.F. D’Souza also remained present on 20/01/2014. The Advocate pleaded that since the reply has already been filed by the PIO on 07/01/2011, nothing more remains to be said and the decision on Penalty application may be passed on the basis of available records.

I have perused the documents available on the file of Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010 as well as in the present penalty case ensuing therefrom. More particularly I have perused the original RTI Application, the reply dated 17/02/2010 and 04/01/2011 and the pleadings of the Respondent filed on 07/01/2011 and the Additional pleadings of the complaint filed on 09/06/2011.

At para 5 of the Additional pleadings it is stated that,

“Regarding inspection of the property:- Complainant states that information submitted in above para 2 on Point (B) was incomplete because a copy of letter written by Prem Kohli to the Opponent stating that the matter is in court has not been furnished along with the copy of resolution. Complainant states that information submitted in above para 2 on Point (C) was also incomplete”.

3/-

-3-

I therefore find it necessary to direct the present Village Panchayat Officer Candolim to send to the present Complainant by registered post, a certified copy of the said letter from Prem Kohli to Village Panchayat given on or before the date of inspection stating that a case agitating his right in the property was pending in Civil Court. He shall file a copy in compliance to this office. He should also supply to this Commission the names of following 4 Village Panchayat Officers who were working in that post

• on 17/02/2010.(date of Reply to RTI application)
• 03/05/2010 ( date of order by the FAA)
• 09/12/2010 (date of order by the SCIC
• 07/01/2011 ( date of filing reply by PIO in present penalty case, namely

Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010)

The present Village Panchayat Officers shall attend the office of the Registrar of this Commission to file the compliance as well as information about earlier Village Panchayat Officers, within a month from receiving this order.

Since the Complainant agrees, the penalty case stands dismissed at this stage without any penalty to the then PIOs who worked as Village Panchayat Officers Candolim on the dates mentioned above.

Needless to add that the original RTI Applicant reserves the Right to agitate a fresh penalty case if the present PIO is unable to supply the proof presented to the Village Panchayat by Prem Kohli that on the date of proposed site inspection, any case was pending in the court where his rights were an issue of agitation.

The penalty case is dismissed as above. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji - Goa

.