(found in Ashwini's comp in Recycle bin WHY ?)

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

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

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No. 188/SCIC/2012

Decided on 19/11/2014

Shri Y. N. Malik

Flat No. D6(4),

Polytechnic Staff Quarters,

Altinho, Panaji, Goa ……Appellant

V/s

1.Shri P.T. Murgaonkar

The Public Information Officer,

Directorate of State Craftsmen Training,

Shrama Shaktio Bhavan,

Patto, Panaji, Goa.

2. Shri Aleixo F Da Costa,

Directorate of State Craftsmen Training,

The First Appellate Authority,

Directorate of State Craftsmen Training,

Shrama Shaktio Bhavan,

Patto, Panaji, Goa. ……Respondents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application dated : -26/06/2012

PIO reply on : -25/07/2012

First Appeal filed on : -30/07/2012

FAA Order dated : -11/09/2012

Second Appeal filed on : -12/11/2012

1. This second appeal arises out of RTI application filed on dated 26/06/2012 made to PIO/Deputy Director(Admn), Directorate of State Craftsman Training, Panaji, Goa regarding all Goa Inter ITI Sports Competition, 2011 organized by Directorate of State Craftsman Training.
2. After notices were issued in second Appeal Appellant was absent since very first day. PIO files his reply, to the second appeal on 19/11/2014 and is taken on record. He states that

• The RTI application was sent to Assistant Director(Training) who requested for extra 15 days time as the Assembly Session was in progress. This request was sent to Appellant by RPAD which was returned back as unclaimed and the First Appeal was filed.
• After FAA’s order to give information. The PIO and Assistant Director(Admn) wrote to appellant stating that information related to SFURTI Scheme was not available and he should recast his questions.
• The Appellant has objected to it through his letter dated 27/09/2012 and filed the Second Appeal on 12/11/2012.

Finally the Respondent says that the concerned information being available with the Assistant Director(Training) namely Shri Rajesh Lolayekar, he may be discharged from this case and for any further action Shri Rajesh Lolayekar held responsible.

3. I have pursued the original RTI application which asked six questions. The questions are mostly regarding how the Scheme SFURTI( a Scheme of Fund for Regeneration of Traditional Industries) was formulated and what action has been taken by the Directorate to make the Scheme successful so that Spinners and weavers and other Craftsman would benefit form it.

For example his Q. 4 reads “The SDCT Department is very very slow and almost sleeping for so many years to get the courses affiliated by NCVT as has been reflected in earlier years prospectus and added to this one of the course Tailoring and Cutting which was running in Pernem ITI and affiliated by NCVT is disappeared from this year likewise the course in Building Supervisor at Vasco ITI is deleted.

Is the disappearance of the course from Pernem ITI has a approval of Government and if so copy may please be furnished.

If Government has not approved to close down the course, why that course is not appeared in the Prospectus of the year 2012-13”.

4. It is obvious that the State Directorate of Craftsman Training does not seem to have done much regarding the Scheme. Under such a situation a proper answer under the RTI Questions is to acknowledge the factual position of “Nil Action” rather than to give a blanket reply stating “ Information is not available”. I have found most of the PIOs and FAAs feeling shy and evasive to acknowledge such a non-action. A reply stating ““ Information is not available” always gives a doubt that the PIO has tried to hide some information and must be avoided as far as possible.
5. The Respondent No. 1 must also understand that he cannot be allowed to shift responsibility completely to AD(T) unless he has actually transferred the application under Section 6(3). There are many questions where the proper reply has to be given by him and not by AD(T). It is also noticed that for every questions the reply could be that the Department has not taken any action eg. Q. 1(a), 2(c). Some questions suggest that a corrective action is needed by the Department such as question No. 3(e). He is therefore directed to go through the original RTI application and reformat a fresh proper reply and send it to the Appellant within 2 months of receiving this order. In addition he should bring to the notice to the Head of Department the entire set of questions so that the Head of Department can initiate proper administrative action.
6. As far as the Appellant is concerned he has remained absent since very first day i.e. 04/02/2014 during all the nine adjournments. Hence Presumption is that appellant is no longer interested. He has also not accepted the registered letter sent by PIO on 26/07/2014 which has been returned by Postal Department as “Unclaimed”. Under RTI, the person seeking information is not absolutely free from all duties. He also has to prove that he is diligent and persuasive about the information he seeks and not too technical.
7. Hence dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the Parties.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Panaji-Goa