GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Penalty No. 40/2012
In Complaint 87/SIC/2012
Decided on: 30/01/2014
(dismissed)
Mrs. Joan Monteiro,
H.No. 34-C, Porba Vaddo,
Calangute, Bardez,
Goa 403 516
V/s
1) Public Information Officer (PIO),
Shri Subodh V. Prabhu,
V. P. Secretary
Village Panchayat Calangute,
Bardez – Goa.
O R D E R (Open Court)
This penalty case arises out of Order passed on 19/07/2012 by the then State Chief Information Commissioner in Complaint No. 87/SIC/2012. However on 24/12/2013 the complainant has filed an application on 24/12/2013 which reads as under
“ In Penalty case 40/2012 The Complainant above named does not wish to prosecute the above mentioned matter any further and desires leave of this Honourable Court to withdraw the present proceedings.
It is therefore prayed that appropriate orders be passed allowing the aforementioned proceedings to be withdrawn and the proceedings be closed”
In view of this the Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Inform parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Penalty 67/2011 on 11/11/2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Penalty 67/2011
In
Complaint No. 594/SCIC/2010
decided on 11/11/2013
(closed discharged)
M/s. Vastuseva Builders,
Through its Proprietress,
Mrs. Milan N. K. Sambary,
H. No. 430, Jaceenagar,
Ponda-Goa ……Complainant
V/s
Mr. P. S.S. Bodke,
The Public Information Officer/
State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services,
Registration Department,
Shramashakti Bhavan, Panaji .... Opponent
Adv. Ms. T. Bhosle holding for Adv. S. Phadte present
Ms. Surekha Naik, Jr. Steno, present from the Office of Opponent
O R D E R (Open Court)
(11/11/2013)
A Complaint was filed under Complaint No. 594/SCIC/2010 in which order was passed by Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner on 30.09.2011 it was mentioned
“No intervention of this Commission is required as information is furnished. However notice for Penalty may be issued u/s. 20 (1)”
The case of the Complainant was that the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not furnish full information along with the documentary support as ordered by First Appellate Authority (FAA), by his Order in Information Appeal No. 5/2010 dated 26/10/2010. However Learned Chief Information Commissioner only partly allowed on 30/09/2011 with observation quoted above and issued notice to Opponent PIO, to which a reply has been filed by PIO on 10.11.11.
However, on the same day, the Complainant also filed another application for correction of records which virtually asks for reconsideration of the matter by reopening it. A request for correction of the records is generally allowed when the correction is in terms of any typographical error or clerical error in Judgement. The error should be apparent on its face. The request for correction cannot be for reopening the case.
….2/-
-2-
The application dated 10/11/2011 for correction of record filed by complainant has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
More over I have also observed in the original file Complaint No. 594/SCIC/2010 that the relevant letter dated 23/07/2008 from Madhuker P. Vernekar as well as the relevant Order from Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society on 28/02/2008 together are sufficient documents to answer the queries asked under original question No. 4 in the application dated 18/12/2009.
Hence the application dated 10/11/2011 filed by Complainant for correction of record is dismissed.
As far as the notice issued under Section 20 of the RTI Act to the Respondent is concerned, I observe that the original question 4 of application was asked on 18/12/2009 to the Respondent (PIO). He gave some reply on 20/01/2010 which was treated as “not full” by the FAA. Afterward during the hearing before the FAA, and based on the proceeding of 17/03/2010 the PIO has furnished information on 18/03/2010 which is declared as full by the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner in the above quoted Order. Thus the Order of FAA was complied without any delay.
The PIO has replied to the Show Cause Notice and stated that:
- Now the full information has been given to the applicant.
- Delay if any was not intentional.
I consider these two as satisfactory. Some Administrative reasons have also been stated which also I find satisfactory. I do not see any intentional or deliberate delay. Hence I do not see any reason to impose penalty. Hence it is ordered that no penalty need to be imposed against the then PIO, namely P. S. S. Bodke, State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services.
The case No. Penalty 67/2011 In Complaint No. 594/SCIC/2010 is disposed in above manner. Notice to the PIO ( State Registrar Cum-Head of Notary Services) is discharged.
SD/-
(Leena Mehendale)
State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp 57/SIC/2011 Decided on: 07/04/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint 57/SIC/2011
Decided on: 07/04/2014
(allowed + New Penalty matter)
Ashok Desai,
309, 3rd Floor,
Damodar Phase – 2,
Near Margao Police Station, ----- Complainant
At Margao – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Dy. Director of Administration,
Public Works Department,
Altinho, Panaji – Goa.
2) Assistant Public Information Officer,
(Mrs. C. Fernandes),
Office of the Dy. Director of Administration,
Public Works Department,
Altinho, Panaji – Goa.
3) The Deemed Public Information Officer,
Superintending Engineer,
PWD, Altinho , Panaji – Goa. ------ Opponents
Respondent 1 and 3 ---- through Advocate Harsha Naik and K.L Bhagat
respectively.
O R D E R
This complaint was filed on 15/03/2011. It arises out of original RTI application dated 24/01/2011 made to the PIO namely Dy. Director of Administration Circle II, PWD Altinho. On the date of final hearing i.e 07/04/2014 Complainant was absent. However he had long back filed his written arguments on 08/09/2011 and 11/07/2012, hence his arguments can be taken as over.
Resp. No. 1, the PIO and Resp. No. 3 i.e the deemed PIO and Suptd. Engineer of circle I of PWD were both absent but their advocates H.N and K.L. Bhagat respectively were present.
...2/-
-- 2 --
It is pertinent to record a brief background of this Complaint. From the papers enclosed in the Complaint it is seen that the Complainant had made certain query about the legality of work done by the Canacona Municipality Council to which they had replied stating “Work is done for public conveyance after doing all legal formalities”. This prompted the Complainant to ask information under RTI Act.
On 11/10/2010 he asked the PIO of Canacona Municipality Council “to provide attested copies of documents related to “ALL LEGAL FORMALITIES” undertaken / carried out as stated in your said letter dated 14/05/2010”. To this, reply was given on 09/11/2010 by the Chief Officer of Canacona Municipality Council as below,
“With reference to your application dated 11/10/2010 and I am to inform you that the rele4vant file along with all legal documents is forwarded to Superinendent Engineer, Circle-I, Altinho, Panaji for obtaining Revised Technical Sanction for the developmental work taken by this office. As soon as the same is received all attested copies of documents towards all legal formalities undertaken/carried out will be submitted to you”.
The above finally resulted in the RTI application dated 24/01/2011 asking the PIO namely the Deputy Director, Administration, PWD, Head quarter, question No. 1 to 8 and this RTI application is the subject matter of the present Complaint. It is alleged at para 12 that he did not get the reply within 30 days as required under the Act. Moreover it is pointed out at para 15 that all the information that he was seeking was merely a matter of 10 minutes but the attitude of the PIO/APIO was itself questionable and showed scant respect for RTI applicant.
The memo of Complaint also narrates from para 1 to para 11 about the objectionable manner in which the working of the office of the Deputy Director, Administration gets conducted.
Further, even though he approached the office of the PIO on 07/03/2011 and gave another reminder application, the PIO/APIO have failed to give information within 30 days of the reminder.
...3/-
-- 3 --
He therefore prays for a compensation as well as for penalty to the PIO (Opponent No. 1) and the APIO (Opponent No. 2).
In his written submission dated 08/09/2011 it is further narrated by the Complainant that subsequent to his filing the reminder to the PIO, the PIO forwarded his application on 09/03/2011 to the Superintending Engineer, Circle I, PWD, who therefore becomes the Deemed PIO. He therefore asked permission to implede the Superintending Engineer namely Mr Rego Opponent No. 3 which permission was granted by the then SCIC vide his roznama order dated 25/10/2011.
I am deciding this complaint against the above stated back drop. The written submission from Opponent No. 1 is filed on 14/07/2011 And the written submission by the Opponent No. 3 is filed on 13/06/2012.
We will first peruse the written submission of Opponent No. 3 It is claimed that he has received the RTI application forwarded to him by Deputy Director, Administration II and PIO (Opponent No. 1) dated 09/03/2011. To this he had replied on 15/03/2011 stating that,
“ sometime back (on 15/12/2010) he had requested the Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council to depute a Junior Engineer for clarification so that the technical sanction requested by the Canacona Municipality Council could be decided. However since no one from Canacona Municipality Council had visited his office the revised estimate had been kept pending and hence no information could be given to the Complainant.”
In the written submission Opponent 1 it is claimed that the above reply of Opponent 3 was furnished to the RTI application vide letter dated 17/03/2011 by speed post.
From the written submission of the complaint dated 08/09/2011 it appears that the despite the claim of speed post, the Opponent 1 has nonetheless sent a reminder to the opponent no 3 on 17/07/2011. The Opponent No 3 claims to have prepared point wise information in respect of the RTI application and furnished
...4/-
-- 4 --
it to the Opponent No. 1 on 19/07/2011. However the Opponent no 1 seems to have received only a xerox copy and in turn has furnished a xerox of the xerox to the complainant. Since the requirement of the RTI Act is that the concerned PIO must supply certified information and not by way of mere xerox, it must be concluded that the requirements of the RTI Act have not been met with, and that both Opponent no 3 and 1 are at fault.
The complainant has therefore reiterated his stand. In the written submission, he has made 2 important points namely.
The information submitted by the Opponent No. 3 or Opponent No. 1 cannot be treated as proper information under RTI Act unless both of them certify the xerox copies.
Opponent No. 3 has merely tried to shift the onus of delay on the chief officer of Canacona Municipality Council which should not be taken as an acceptable excuse.
The Opponent No. 1 also cannot evade the consequence of having delayed the information.
The complainant therefore reiterates his prayers.
a.That this Hon’ble Commission may direct the Opponents to provide certified information to Complainants for his RTI application dated 24/01/2011.
b.That this Hon’ble Commission may impose penalty against the Opponent No. 1 and Opponent No. 3 U/S 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for not supplying the information within the stipulated time at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day from 23/02/2011 till the date when the correct and true information is provided.
The two PIOs have reiterated that finally the applicant has received information. They rely on the written argument dated 08/09/2011 where at para 3 the complainant describes,
“......... provided the Xerox copy of information i.e letter dated 19/07/2011 which was forwarded to the Complainant by post by the PIO under her office letter No. SPIO/RTI-ADMN(II)/330/2010/154 dated 28/07/2011 received by the complainant on 30/07/2011.”
...5/-
-- 5 –
The PIO none the less admits that she failed to certify the xerox copies.
I agree with the contentions of the Complainant. It is clear from the records before me that all the Opponents 1, 2 & 3 have been quite casual and careless in their attitude towards answering the RTI questions, even if it may not be said immediately that their reluctance to reply was deliberate.
I therefore allow the Complaint case with following directions,
The Opponent No. 3 should supply a certified copy of his reply dated 19/07/2011 sent to Opponent No. 1. He will send this directly to the Complainant so as to reach the Complaint before 30/06/2014. He will send another certified copy to Opponent No. 1 for their record.
The Opponent No. 1, 2 and 3 shall also be given a notice under section 20(1) for penalty action. They should submit their reply within a month of getting this order, explaining why Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint 57/SIC/2011
Decided on: 07/04/2014
(allowed + New Penalty matter)
Ashok Desai,
309, 3rd Floor,
Damodar Phase – 2,
Near Margao Police Station, ----- Complainant
At Margao – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Dy. Director of Administration,
Public Works Department,
Altinho, Panaji – Goa.
2) Assistant Public Information Officer,
(Mrs. C. Fernandes),
Office of the Dy. Director of Administration,
Public Works Department,
Altinho, Panaji – Goa.
3) The Deemed Public Information Officer,
Superintending Engineer,
PWD, Altinho , Panaji – Goa. ------ Opponents
Respondent 1 and 3 ---- through Advocate Harsha Naik and K.L Bhagat
respectively.
O R D E R
This complaint was filed on 15/03/2011. It arises out of original RTI application dated 24/01/2011 made to the PIO namely Dy. Director of Administration Circle II, PWD Altinho. On the date of final hearing i.e 07/04/2014 Complainant was absent. However he had long back filed his written arguments on 08/09/2011 and 11/07/2012, hence his arguments can be taken as over.
Resp. No. 1, the PIO and Resp. No. 3 i.e the deemed PIO and Suptd. Engineer of circle I of PWD were both absent but their advocates H.N and K.L. Bhagat respectively were present.
...2/-
-- 2 --
It is pertinent to record a brief background of this Complaint. From the papers enclosed in the Complaint it is seen that the Complainant had made certain query about the legality of work done by the Canacona Municipality Council to which they had replied stating “Work is done for public conveyance after doing all legal formalities”. This prompted the Complainant to ask information under RTI Act.
On 11/10/2010 he asked the PIO of Canacona Municipality Council “to provide attested copies of documents related to “ALL LEGAL FORMALITIES” undertaken / carried out as stated in your said letter dated 14/05/2010”. To this, reply was given on 09/11/2010 by the Chief Officer of Canacona Municipality Council as below,
“With reference to your application dated 11/10/2010 and I am to inform you that the rele4vant file along with all legal documents is forwarded to Superinendent Engineer, Circle-I, Altinho, Panaji for obtaining Revised Technical Sanction for the developmental work taken by this office. As soon as the same is received all attested copies of documents towards all legal formalities undertaken/carried out will be submitted to you”.
The above finally resulted in the RTI application dated 24/01/2011 asking the PIO namely the Deputy Director, Administration, PWD, Head quarter, question No. 1 to 8 and this RTI application is the subject matter of the present Complaint. It is alleged at para 12 that he did not get the reply within 30 days as required under the Act. Moreover it is pointed out at para 15 that all the information that he was seeking was merely a matter of 10 minutes but the attitude of the PIO/APIO was itself questionable and showed scant respect for RTI applicant.
The memo of Complaint also narrates from para 1 to para 11 about the objectionable manner in which the working of the office of the Deputy Director, Administration gets conducted.
Further, even though he approached the office of the PIO on 07/03/2011 and gave another reminder application, the PIO/APIO have failed to give information within 30 days of the reminder.
...3/-
-- 3 --
He therefore prays for a compensation as well as for penalty to the PIO (Opponent No. 1) and the APIO (Opponent No. 2).
In his written submission dated 08/09/2011 it is further narrated by the Complainant that subsequent to his filing the reminder to the PIO, the PIO forwarded his application on 09/03/2011 to the Superintending Engineer, Circle I, PWD, who therefore becomes the Deemed PIO. He therefore asked permission to implede the Superintending Engineer namely Mr Rego Opponent No. 3 which permission was granted by the then SCIC vide his roznama order dated 25/10/2011.
I am deciding this complaint against the above stated back drop. The written submission from Opponent No. 1 is filed on 14/07/2011 And the written submission by the Opponent No. 3 is filed on 13/06/2012.
We will first peruse the written submission of Opponent No. 3 It is claimed that he has received the RTI application forwarded to him by Deputy Director, Administration II and PIO (Opponent No. 1) dated 09/03/2011. To this he had replied on 15/03/2011 stating that,
“ sometime back (on 15/12/2010) he had requested the Chief Officer of Canacona Municipal Council to depute a Junior Engineer for clarification so that the technical sanction requested by the Canacona Municipality Council could be decided. However since no one from Canacona Municipality Council had visited his office the revised estimate had been kept pending and hence no information could be given to the Complainant.”
In the written submission Opponent 1 it is claimed that the above reply of Opponent 3 was furnished to the RTI application vide letter dated 17/03/2011 by speed post.
From the written submission of the complaint dated 08/09/2011 it appears that the despite the claim of speed post, the Opponent 1 has nonetheless sent a reminder to the opponent no 3 on 17/07/2011. The Opponent No 3 claims to have prepared point wise information in respect of the RTI application and furnished
...4/-
-- 4 --
it to the Opponent No. 1 on 19/07/2011. However the Opponent no 1 seems to have received only a xerox copy and in turn has furnished a xerox of the xerox to the complainant. Since the requirement of the RTI Act is that the concerned PIO must supply certified information and not by way of mere xerox, it must be concluded that the requirements of the RTI Act have not been met with, and that both Opponent no 3 and 1 are at fault.
The complainant has therefore reiterated his stand. In the written submission, he has made 2 important points namely.
The information submitted by the Opponent No. 3 or Opponent No. 1 cannot be treated as proper information under RTI Act unless both of them certify the xerox copies.
Opponent No. 3 has merely tried to shift the onus of delay on the chief officer of Canacona Municipality Council which should not be taken as an acceptable excuse.
The Opponent No. 1 also cannot evade the consequence of having delayed the information.
The complainant therefore reiterates his prayers.
a.That this Hon’ble Commission may direct the Opponents to provide certified information to Complainants for his RTI application dated 24/01/2011.
b.That this Hon’ble Commission may impose penalty against the Opponent No. 1 and Opponent No. 3 U/S 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for not supplying the information within the stipulated time at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day from 23/02/2011 till the date when the correct and true information is provided.
The two PIOs have reiterated that finally the applicant has received information. They rely on the written argument dated 08/09/2011 where at para 3 the complainant describes,
“......... provided the Xerox copy of information i.e letter dated 19/07/2011 which was forwarded to the Complainant by post by the PIO under her office letter No. SPIO/RTI-ADMN(II)/330/2010/154 dated 28/07/2011 received by the complainant on 30/07/2011.”
...5/-
-- 5 –
The PIO none the less admits that she failed to certify the xerox copies.
I agree with the contentions of the Complainant. It is clear from the records before me that all the Opponents 1, 2 & 3 have been quite casual and careless in their attitude towards answering the RTI questions, even if it may not be said immediately that their reluctance to reply was deliberate.
I therefore allow the Complaint case with following directions,
The Opponent No. 3 should supply a certified copy of his reply dated 19/07/2011 sent to Opponent No. 1. He will send this directly to the Complainant so as to reach the Complaint before 30/06/2014. He will send another certified copy to Opponent No. 1 for their record.
The Opponent No. 1, 2 and 3 shall also be given a notice under section 20(1) for penalty action. They should submit their reply within a month of getting this order, explaining why Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
Comp.572/SCIC/2010 Decided on 13.01.2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp. No. 572/SCIC/2010
Decided on 13.01.2014
(dismissed)
Shri Ranjit Satardekar,
Advocate by Profession, His Office on 1st floor,
Azavedo Building, Patto, Panaji ……Complainant
V/s
Shri Arvind Gauns,
Superintendent, Of Police, North Goa District, Porvorim .... Opponent
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Complaint is filed on 2/11/2010 arising in respect of original RTI (Right to Information) application dated 18/09/2009 asking Information from the PIO (Public Information Officer) & Superintendent of Police, North Goa District.
After persuing the matter to certain extent with the then FAA (First Appellate Authority) and then with the then Second Appellate Authority, that is, SCIC (State Chief Information Commissioner), the Appellant Ranjit Satardekar has submitted an application on 13/01/2014 mentioning as below:-
“The Complainant states that he does not desire to pursue further the above Complaint as the differences between him and the original Complainant Smt. Rucmini R. Narvekar who had lodged her Complaint before the Panaji Town Police Station against him are amicably settled and the information sought is not required.
Therefore, the Complainant herein does hereby withdraw the above Complaint.”
In view of this the Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Announced in Open Court. Inform the parties.
sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Panaji-Goa
Comp 90/SCIC/2013 Decided on: 28/11/2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp. No. 90/SCIC/2013
Decided on: 28/11/2013
(dismissed)
Ashok Desai,
309, 3rd floor,
Damodar Phase-II,
Near Police Station,
Margao-Goa ……Complainant
V/s
Mr. Prashant Shirodkar,
The Then Public Information Officer,
Chief Officer of,
Canacona Municipal Council,
At Chaudi Canacona Goa,
Presently Dy. Collector & SDO,
Canacona, at Chaudi, Canacona-Goa .... Opponent
Complainant -Self
PIO- Self
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Complaint is filed on 21/06/2013, by an Advocate in respect of information sought by him under RTI ( Right to Information Act ) dated 30/10/2012 on the question which presumably pertains to the Masonary structure/Building constructed in survey No. 267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona taluka standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Desai. PIO (Public Information Officer) of the Municipal Corporation Canacona has given his reply on 19/11/2012, within the time limit prescribed by the RTI Act. The reply is not found satisfactory by the Complainant. However the Complainant has not approached the FAA which he is entitled to do within 30 days after receiving reply from the PIO. The Complaint before the SIC (State Information Commission) has been filed after about 7 months, from the date of PIO’s reply.
In the Complainant’s application to SIC, he has not given any reason as to why remedy available to him by way of First Appeal was not availed by him. On being specifically asked this on the day of hearing his brief reply was that the same is not mandatory under RTI Act.
The RTI Act provides for First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority to the State Chief Information Commissioner .It also provides for complaint in specific situations.
I refer to section 18(1) (e) as well as 19(1) and 19(3) of the RTI Act, as under:
18 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-
18(e):- Who believes that he or she has been given incomplete misleading or false information under this Act;
19 (1) :- Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt or such a decision, prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority.
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
19(3):- A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information commission:
Provided that the Central Information commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be , may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
The specific provision of Appeal under section 19 (1) is clearly meant as the First immediate relief to the person seeking information and not receiving proper information from the PIO. The FAA (First Appellate Authority) is also normally a senior Officer of the department who ranks higher above PIO (Public Information Officer). If there is anything in the reply given by the PIO which can be called false or unsatisfactory or as a dodging reply, the FAA, being senior Officer of the same department has a far better chance to capture the mistake and correct it by giving proper direction to the PIO. Very often the FAA is also a direct supervisory officer of the PIO. In such a case, he also gets a chance to make administrative assessment of the ground reality in relation to the information deductible from the RTI question and take corrective steps.
The provisions under section 18 (a) to (f) are meant to take care of those situation where it is assessed by the CIC (Chief Information Commissioner) that the RTI applicant may be getting cornered so as to make his questions infructuous. This is clear from the wording of section 18 (a) (b)(c)(d) & (f). Section 18(e) has also been included so as to make the provision of section 18 complete. This inclusion does not however mean that the CIC must entertain all the Complaints under section 18 (e). If the section 18(e) is interpreted to mean that appeal under section 19 need not to be made and it is sole discretion of the applicant whether to pursue the matter under section 18(e) without bothering to take the recourse of section 19 (1) within time, then it would make section 19 (1) totally redundant and will defeat the purpose of section 19 as well as of the RTI Act to a large extent.
It however doesn’t mean that the provision of section 18(e) are completely redundant. It would therefore be left to the judgment of Information Commissioner, who is also the second Appellate Authority above FAA, whether or not to entertain a Complaint coming directly under section 18(e). Particularly so where the original applicant has not availed the remedy of Sec 19 (1). There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to when the Information Commissioner should entertain such application and when reject it. A best possible guideline would perhaps be to assess what damage is caused to public at large. Even this assessment cannot be express or elaborate, but will be of subjective satisfaction of Information Commissioner.
In the present Complaint I do not find any reason mentioned as to why Complainant could not avail of the first remedy available, by approaching the FAA (First Appellate Authority). It is seen that he had asked 12 questions in respect of Masonary Structure /Building constructed in survey No. 267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka in Municipal ward No. 4, by introducing the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai. The opening para states
“provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005 in respect of MASONARY STRUCTURE / BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN SURVEY NO.267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka in Municipal ward No.4(Pansulem) of CMC Canacona in survey standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai.”
He has himself brought in a certain amount of vagueness in this questions. It is not clear if the land in said survey number 267/33 stands in name of Kusta Pandu Dessai or someone else. Also, which is the survey number standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai? Also, how many structures are there in the said survey number? As a result of this vagueness in the introducing para, the PIO has been able to state that the information is not available or that it was not applicable except for mentioning in one reply that as per the Municipal record two houses No. 92 & 93 stood in the name of Kusta Pandu Desai, and that too without stating if those two houses stood in survey no.267/33.
I therefore dismiss the Complaint. The Applicant will however be free to ask fresh question regarding any masonry structure at village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka regarding housing permission and its legality, if he thinks that he can bring more clarity to his question. If asked, such questions shall be entertained by the present PIO within the time frame allowed under RTI Act 2005.
With the above observation, Complaint is dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Parties to be informed.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp. No. 90/SCIC/2013
Decided on: 28/11/2013
(dismissed)
Ashok Desai,
309, 3rd floor,
Damodar Phase-II,
Near Police Station,
Margao-Goa ……Complainant
V/s
Mr. Prashant Shirodkar,
The Then Public Information Officer,
Chief Officer of,
Canacona Municipal Council,
At Chaudi Canacona Goa,
Presently Dy. Collector & SDO,
Canacona, at Chaudi, Canacona-Goa .... Opponent
Complainant -Self
PIO- Self
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Complaint is filed on 21/06/2013, by an Advocate in respect of information sought by him under RTI ( Right to Information Act ) dated 30/10/2012 on the question which presumably pertains to the Masonary structure/Building constructed in survey No. 267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona taluka standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Desai. PIO (Public Information Officer) of the Municipal Corporation Canacona has given his reply on 19/11/2012, within the time limit prescribed by the RTI Act. The reply is not found satisfactory by the Complainant. However the Complainant has not approached the FAA which he is entitled to do within 30 days after receiving reply from the PIO. The Complaint before the SIC (State Information Commission) has been filed after about 7 months, from the date of PIO’s reply.
In the Complainant’s application to SIC, he has not given any reason as to why remedy available to him by way of First Appeal was not availed by him. On being specifically asked this on the day of hearing his brief reply was that the same is not mandatory under RTI Act.
The RTI Act provides for First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority to the State Chief Information Commissioner .It also provides for complaint in specific situations.
I refer to section 18(1) (e) as well as 19(1) and 19(3) of the RTI Act, as under:
18 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-
18(e):- Who believes that he or she has been given incomplete misleading or false information under this Act;
19 (1) :- Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt or such a decision, prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority.
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
19(3):- A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information commission:
Provided that the Central Information commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be , may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
The specific provision of Appeal under section 19 (1) is clearly meant as the First immediate relief to the person seeking information and not receiving proper information from the PIO. The FAA (First Appellate Authority) is also normally a senior Officer of the department who ranks higher above PIO (Public Information Officer). If there is anything in the reply given by the PIO which can be called false or unsatisfactory or as a dodging reply, the FAA, being senior Officer of the same department has a far better chance to capture the mistake and correct it by giving proper direction to the PIO. Very often the FAA is also a direct supervisory officer of the PIO. In such a case, he also gets a chance to make administrative assessment of the ground reality in relation to the information deductible from the RTI question and take corrective steps.
The provisions under section 18 (a) to (f) are meant to take care of those situation where it is assessed by the CIC (Chief Information Commissioner) that the RTI applicant may be getting cornered so as to make his questions infructuous. This is clear from the wording of section 18 (a) (b)(c)(d) & (f). Section 18(e) has also been included so as to make the provision of section 18 complete. This inclusion does not however mean that the CIC must entertain all the Complaints under section 18 (e). If the section 18(e) is interpreted to mean that appeal under section 19 need not to be made and it is sole discretion of the applicant whether to pursue the matter under section 18(e) without bothering to take the recourse of section 19 (1) within time, then it would make section 19 (1) totally redundant and will defeat the purpose of section 19 as well as of the RTI Act to a large extent.
It however doesn’t mean that the provision of section 18(e) are completely redundant. It would therefore be left to the judgment of Information Commissioner, who is also the second Appellate Authority above FAA, whether or not to entertain a Complaint coming directly under section 18(e). Particularly so where the original applicant has not availed the remedy of Sec 19 (1). There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to when the Information Commissioner should entertain such application and when reject it. A best possible guideline would perhaps be to assess what damage is caused to public at large. Even this assessment cannot be express or elaborate, but will be of subjective satisfaction of Information Commissioner.
In the present Complaint I do not find any reason mentioned as to why Complainant could not avail of the first remedy available, by approaching the FAA (First Appellate Authority). It is seen that he had asked 12 questions in respect of Masonary Structure /Building constructed in survey No. 267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka in Municipal ward No. 4, by introducing the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai. The opening para states
“provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005 in respect of MASONARY STRUCTURE / BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN SURVEY NO.267/33 of village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka in Municipal ward No.4(Pansulem) of CMC Canacona in survey standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai.”
He has himself brought in a certain amount of vagueness in this questions. It is not clear if the land in said survey number 267/33 stands in name of Kusta Pandu Dessai or someone else. Also, which is the survey number standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai? Also, how many structures are there in the said survey number? As a result of this vagueness in the introducing para, the PIO has been able to state that the information is not available or that it was not applicable except for mentioning in one reply that as per the Municipal record two houses No. 92 & 93 stood in the name of Kusta Pandu Desai, and that too without stating if those two houses stood in survey no.267/33.
I therefore dismiss the Complaint. The Applicant will however be free to ask fresh question regarding any masonry structure at village Nagarcem Palolem of Canacona Taluka regarding housing permission and its legality, if he thinks that he can bring more clarity to his question. If asked, such questions shall be entertained by the present PIO within the time frame allowed under RTI Act 2005.
With the above observation, Complaint is dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Parties to be informed.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Comp. 64/SIC/2013 decided on 4.11.2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp. No. 64/SIC/2013
decided on 4.11.2013
(dismissed)
Shri Neville Pinto,
H. No.19/8, Olaulim,
P. O. Carona, Bardez-Goa ……Complainant
V/s
The Public Information Officer/
Asst. Public Information Officer,
Assistant Director (Welfare of Differently Abled),
O/o. Director, Directorate of Social Welfare,
18th June Road, Panaji, Goa .... Opponent
O R D E R (Open Court)
Both Complainant as well as PIO, who is the Asstt. Director are present. Requisite information has now been given as directed by Appellate Authority by reconstructing page 1. Some delay in doing so is condonable. Hence is condoned.
The Appeal is closed. Informed both parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Comp. No. 64/SIC/2013
decided on 4.11.2013
(dismissed)
Shri Neville Pinto,
H. No.19/8, Olaulim,
P. O. Carona, Bardez-Goa ……Complainant
V/s
The Public Information Officer/
Asst. Public Information Officer,
Assistant Director (Welfare of Differently Abled),
O/o. Director, Directorate of Social Welfare,
18th June Road, Panaji, Goa .... Opponent
O R D E R (Open Court)
Both Complainant as well as PIO, who is the Asstt. Director are present. Requisite information has now been given as directed by Appellate Authority by reconstructing page 1. Some delay in doing so is condonable. Hence is condoned.
The Appeal is closed. Informed both parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 193/SCIC/2011 on: 13/01/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 193/SCIC/2011
Decided on: 13/01/2014
(dismissed)
Shri Ranjit Satardekar
v/s
(1)Dir. of Prosecution, PIO, Panaji
(2) Under Secretary (Estt), PIO, Secretariat, Porvorim
(3) Under Secretary (Home), PIO, Home Department (General), Secretariat, Porvorim
(4) Law Secretary, FAA, Govt. of Goa,
Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa …..Respondents
O R D E R (Oral)
This Appeal was filed on 07/09/2011 in regard to original application under RTI Act (Right to information Act 2005) dated 11/04/2011 given to Under Secretary Law/Establishment and PIO(Public Information Officer). After pursuing the matter to certain extent with the FAA (First Appellate Authority) and then with the second Appellate Authority, that is, SCIC (State Chief Information Commissioner), the Appellant Ranjit Satardekar has submitted an application for withdrawal on 13/01/2014 which mentions as below:-
“The appellant abovenamed does not desire to persue further the above appeal and as such, desires to withdraw the same.
Therefore, your honour may be pleased to close the proceedings in above appeal”
In view of this, Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn inform the parties.
Announced in Open Court. Inform the parties.
sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner, Panaji-Goa.
Appeal 184/SCIC/2011 and 188/SCIC/2011 both on 12/05/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 184/SCIC/2011
Decided on 12/05/2014
Same matrix in 184-188/SCIC/2011
Same matrix in 184-188/SCIC/2011
(desmissed)
Nishant G. Sawant,
H.No.1188,
Mahalaxmi Bandora,
Ponda-Goa.
V/s
1. The Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer,
W.D.XVIII (R) ,PWD,
Ponda-Goa. …….Respondent no.1
3. The First Appellate Authority
S.S.W., P.W.D. Altihno,
Panaji-Goa. …..Respondent no.2
O R D E R
This second Appeal filed on 25/08/2011. It arises from the original RTI Application dated 15/12/2009 made to the said PIO, Ex. Engineer, PIO, W.D. XVIII ( R ), PWD regarding play ground works opposite to the health centre at marcaim.
The Appellant has submitted exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 & exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 claiming them to be the replies of the PIO to his above said RTI application. However, the PIO claims that exhibit E, F, or G pertain to their replies in some other 17 matters and not to the present case.
Exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 reads as below:-
“With reference to your 17 Nos. of applications, as on today, the relevant files are being traced. Since, the information you have sought under RTI Act, 2005 is voluminous, it will take some time, preferably, about more than one month to trace these files.”
Exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 contains statement in the form of Para: 1 to 30 and further mentions as below:-
“You are requested to inspect these files during the office working hours and point out the documents sought by you as per RTI Act (2005) in your letter, so as to allow us to xerox these copies after necessary payment.”
--2/-
--2--
Appellant has also filed Exhibit G from which it appears that he attended the office of PIO on 30/05/2011 and asked for “ALL” information without any specification. Thus, it may be stated that he had not shown any clarity in asking for specific information.
He has also filed exhibit B which is his first appeal to the FAA, filed on 17/06/2011. In this Appeal memo he has not made any reference to exhibit E, F, or G but has simply claimed that he has not received any information from PIO within stipulated time. The Appeal was rejected by FAA in his Appeal No. 233/ 2011 dated 13/07/2011 the FAA has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the Appeal has been filed after a delay of nearly 1&1/2 years for which appellant did not give any justification nor any application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter Respondent has filed second Appeal by simply mentioning that he did not receive a reply to his RTI application dated 15/12/2009 and further that the Appeal filed before FAA on 17/06/2011 has been dismissed. He has not given argument as to why the Order of FAA is wrong or unjustified. Although this second appeal memo mentions that he is attaching annexure E,F & G, nothing has been stated by him about their relevance in the present case. In the prayer clause at para B of his second appeal he has asked for some additional information which pertains to the organization of PWD and these questions ore not a part and parcel of his original RTI application. Thus they are beyond the scope of this second appeal.
The PIO has filed his reply on 1/11/2011 to the second Appeal. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011 recorded by the then SCIC himself, it is mentioned that copy of reply of the PIO has been received by the Appellant. In this reply the PIO has pointed out at para 6 that the exhibit submitted at annexure E, F & G pertain to some different questions and have no relevance to present case. He has also mentioned that the appellant who is a contractor was a regular visitor to their office and had verbally informed that he does not require information. PIO has also taken the ground of delay for which reason the First Appeal was dismissed and requested for the dismissal of second appeal too. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to this reply.
Considering all this I agree with the PIO that the Appellant has not given satisfactory reasons for delay and that the exhibits E, F & G which have no relevance to his original RTI, have been included in Second Appeal. This appears to have been done in order to circumvent the necessity of explaining delay. In view of this I find that the Appeal deserves no merit.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 185/SCIC/2011
Decided on 12/05/2014
Nishant G. Sawant,
H.No.1188,
Mahalaxmi Bandora,
Ponda-Goa.
V/s
1. The Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer,
W.D.XVIII (R) ,PWD,
Ponda-Goa. …….Respondent no.1
2. The First Appellate Authority
S.S.W., P.W.D. Altihno,
Panaji-Goa. …..Respondent no.2
ORDER
This second Appeal is filed on 25/08/2011. It arises from the original RTI Application dated 30/12/2009 made to the then PIO, Ex. Engineer, W.D. XVIII (R), and Ponda in respect of Tender Notice No. P.W.D./Div XVIII (R)/TECH-2009/F.5/73/08-09 dated 16-02-2009.
The Appellant has submitted exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 & exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 claiming them to be the replies of the PIO to his above said RTI application. However, the PIO claims that exhibit E, F, or G pertain to their replies in some other 17 matters and not to the present case.
Exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 reads as below:-
“With reference to your 17 Nos. of applications, as on today, the relevant files are being traced. Since, the information you have sought under RTI Act, 2005 is voluminous, it will take some time, preferably, about more than one month to trace these files.”
Exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 contains statement in the form of Para: 1 to 30 and further mentions as below:-
“You are requested to inspect these files during the office working hours and point out the documents sought by you as per RTI Act (2005) in your letter, so as to allow us to xerox these copies after necessary payment.”
--2/-
--2--
Appellant has also filed Exhibit G from which it appears that he attended the office of PIO on 30/05/2011 and asked for “ALL” information without any specification. Thus, it may be stated that he had not shown any clarity in asking for specific information.
Appellant has filed exhibit B which is his first appeal memo to the FAA, filed on 17/06/2011, which is nearly one & half year after his RTI application to PIO dated 30/12/2009. In this Appeal memo, he has not made any reference to exhibit E, F, or G but has simply claimed that he did not receive any information from PIO within stipulated time. The Appeal was rejected by FAA in his Order No. 235 / 2011 dated 13/07/2011 on the ground of delay of nearly 1&1/2 years for which appellant did not give any justification nor any application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter Respondent has filed second Appeal by simply mentioning that he did not receive a reply to his RTI application dated 30/12/2009 and further that the Appeal filed before FAA on 17/06/2011 has been dismissed. He has not given argument as to why the Order of FAA is wrong or unjustified. Although this second appeal memo mentions that he is attaching annexure E, F & G, nothing has been stated by him about their relevance in the present case. In the prayer clause at para B of his second appeal he has asked for some additional information which pertains to the organization of PWD and these questions ore not a part and parcel of his original RTI application. Thus they are beyond the scope of this second appeal.
The PIO has filed his reply on 1/11/2011 to the second Appeal. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011 recorded by the then SCIC himself, it is mentioned that copy of reply of the PIO has been received by the Appellant. In this reply the PIO has pointed out at para 6 that the exhibit submitted at annexure E, F & G pertain to some different questions and have no relevance to present case. He has also mentioned that the appellant who is a contractor was a regular visitor to their office and had verbally informed that he does not require information. PIO has also taken the ground of delay for which reason the First Appeal was dismissed and requested for the dismissal of second appeal too. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to this reply.
Considering all this I agree with the PIO that the Appellant has not given satisfactory reasons for delay and that the exhibits E, F & G which have no relevance to his original RTI, have been included in Second Appeal. This appears to have been done in order to circumvent the necessity of explaining delay. In view of this I find that the Appeal deserves no merit.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 188/SCIC/2011
Decided on 12/05/2014
Nishant G. Sawant,
H.No.1188,
Mahalaxmi Bandora,
Ponda-Goa.
V/s
1. The Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer,
W.D.XVIII (R) ,PWD,
Ponda-Goa. …….Respondent no.1
3. The First Appellate Authority
S.S.W., P.W.D. Altihno,
Panaji-Goa. …..Respondent no.2
O R D E R
This second Appeal filed on 25/08/2011. It arises from the original RTI Application dated 15/12/2009 made to the said PIO, Ex. Engineer, PIO, W.D. XVIII (R), and PWD in respect to Tender Notice No. P.W.D./Div XVIII (R)/TECH-2008-F-5/54/08-09 dated 23/12/2008.
The Appellant has submitted exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 & exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 claiming them to be the replies of the PIO to his above said RTI application. However, the PIO claims that exhibit E, F, or G pertain to their replies in some other 17 matters and not to the present case.
Exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 reads as below:-
“With reference to your 17 Nos. of applications, as on today, the relevant files are being traced. Since, the information you have sought under RTI Act, 2005 is voluminous, it will take some time, preferably, about more than one month to trace these files.”
Exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 contains statement in the form of Para: 1 to 30 and further mentions as below:-
“you are requested to inspect these files during the office working hours and point out the documents sought by you as per RTI Act (2005) in your letter, so as to allow us to xerox these copies after necessary payment.”
--2/-
-- 2 --
Appellant has also filed Exhibit G from which it appears that he attended the office of PIO on 30/05/2011 and asked for “ALL” information without any specification. Thus, it may be stated that he had not shown any clarity in asking for specific information.
He has also filed exhibit B which is his first appeal to the FAA, filed on 17/06/2011. In this Appeal memo he has not made any reference to exhibit E, F, or G but has simply claimed that he has not received any information from PIO within stipulated time. The Appeal was rejected by FAA in his Appeal No. 231/2011 dated 13/07/2011 the FAA has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the Appeal has been filed after a delay of nearly 1&1/2 years for which appellant did not give any justification nor any application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter Respondent has filed second Appeal by simply mentioning that he did not receive a reply to his RTI application dated 15/12/2009 and further that the Appeal filed before FAA on 17/06/2011 has been dismissed. He has not given argument as to why the Order of FAA is wrong or unjustified. Although this second appeal memo mentions that he is attaching annexure E, F & G, nothing has been stated by him about their relevance in the present case. In the prayer clause at para B of his second appeal he has asked for some additional information which pertains to the organization of PWD and these questions ore not a part and parcel of his original RTI application. Thus they are beyond the scope of this second appeal.
The PIO has filed his reply on 1/11/2011 to the second Appeal. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011 recorded by the then SCIC himself, it is mentioned that copy of reply of the PIO has been received by the Appellant. In this reply the PIO has pointed out at para 6 that the exhibit submitted at annexure E, F & G pertain to some different questions and have no relevance to present case. He has also mentioned that the appellant who is a contractor was a regular visitor to their office and had verbally informed that he does not require information. PIO has also taken the ground of delay for which reason the First Appeal was dismissed and requested for the dismissal of second appeal too. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to this reply.
…3/-
-- 3 –
Considering all this I agree with the PIO that the Appellant has not given satisfactory reasons for delay and that the exhibits E, F & G which have no relevance to his original RTI, have been included in Second Appeal. This appears to have been done in order to circumvent the necessity of explaining delay. In view of this I find that the Appeal deserves no merit.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner, Panaji-Goa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 185/SCIC/2011
Decided on 12/05/2014
Nishant G. Sawant,
H.No.1188,
Mahalaxmi Bandora,
Ponda-Goa.
V/s
1. The Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer,
W.D.XVIII (R) ,PWD,
Ponda-Goa. …….Respondent no.1
2. The First Appellate Authority
S.S.W., P.W.D. Altihno,
Panaji-Goa. …..Respondent no.2
ORDER
This second Appeal is filed on 25/08/2011. It arises from the original RTI Application dated 30/12/2009 made to the then PIO, Ex. Engineer, W.D. XVIII (R), and Ponda in respect of Tender Notice No. P.W.D./Div XVIII (R)/TECH-2009/F.5/73/08-09 dated 16-02-2009.
The Appellant has submitted exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 & exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 claiming them to be the replies of the PIO to his above said RTI application. However, the PIO claims that exhibit E, F, or G pertain to their replies in some other 17 matters and not to the present case.
Exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 reads as below:-
“With reference to your 17 Nos. of applications, as on today, the relevant files are being traced. Since, the information you have sought under RTI Act, 2005 is voluminous, it will take some time, preferably, about more than one month to trace these files.”
Exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 contains statement in the form of Para: 1 to 30 and further mentions as below:-
“You are requested to inspect these files during the office working hours and point out the documents sought by you as per RTI Act (2005) in your letter, so as to allow us to xerox these copies after necessary payment.”
--2/-
--2--
Appellant has also filed Exhibit G from which it appears that he attended the office of PIO on 30/05/2011 and asked for “ALL” information without any specification. Thus, it may be stated that he had not shown any clarity in asking for specific information.
Appellant has filed exhibit B which is his first appeal memo to the FAA, filed on 17/06/2011, which is nearly one & half year after his RTI application to PIO dated 30/12/2009. In this Appeal memo, he has not made any reference to exhibit E, F, or G but has simply claimed that he did not receive any information from PIO within stipulated time. The Appeal was rejected by FAA in his Order No. 235 / 2011 dated 13/07/2011 on the ground of delay of nearly 1&1/2 years for which appellant did not give any justification nor any application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter Respondent has filed second Appeal by simply mentioning that he did not receive a reply to his RTI application dated 30/12/2009 and further that the Appeal filed before FAA on 17/06/2011 has been dismissed. He has not given argument as to why the Order of FAA is wrong or unjustified. Although this second appeal memo mentions that he is attaching annexure E, F & G, nothing has been stated by him about their relevance in the present case. In the prayer clause at para B of his second appeal he has asked for some additional information which pertains to the organization of PWD and these questions ore not a part and parcel of his original RTI application. Thus they are beyond the scope of this second appeal.
The PIO has filed his reply on 1/11/2011 to the second Appeal. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011 recorded by the then SCIC himself, it is mentioned that copy of reply of the PIO has been received by the Appellant. In this reply the PIO has pointed out at para 6 that the exhibit submitted at annexure E, F & G pertain to some different questions and have no relevance to present case. He has also mentioned that the appellant who is a contractor was a regular visitor to their office and had verbally informed that he does not require information. PIO has also taken the ground of delay for which reason the First Appeal was dismissed and requested for the dismissal of second appeal too. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to this reply.
Considering all this I agree with the PIO that the Appellant has not given satisfactory reasons for delay and that the exhibits E, F & G which have no relevance to his original RTI, have been included in Second Appeal. This appears to have been done in order to circumvent the necessity of explaining delay. In view of this I find that the Appeal deserves no merit.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 188/SCIC/2011
Decided on 12/05/2014
Nishant G. Sawant,
H.No.1188,
Mahalaxmi Bandora,
Ponda-Goa.
V/s
1. The Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer,
W.D.XVIII (R) ,PWD,
Ponda-Goa. …….Respondent no.1
3. The First Appellate Authority
S.S.W., P.W.D. Altihno,
Panaji-Goa. …..Respondent no.2
O R D E R
This second Appeal filed on 25/08/2011. It arises from the original RTI Application dated 15/12/2009 made to the said PIO, Ex. Engineer, PIO, W.D. XVIII (R), and PWD in respect to Tender Notice No. P.W.D./Div XVIII (R)/TECH-2008-F-5/54/08-09 dated 23/12/2008.
The Appellant has submitted exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 & exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 claiming them to be the replies of the PIO to his above said RTI application. However, the PIO claims that exhibit E, F, or G pertain to their replies in some other 17 matters and not to the present case.
Exhibit E dated 6/05/2011 reads as below:-
“With reference to your 17 Nos. of applications, as on today, the relevant files are being traced. Since, the information you have sought under RTI Act, 2005 is voluminous, it will take some time, preferably, about more than one month to trace these files.”
Exhibit F dated 25/05/2011 contains statement in the form of Para: 1 to 30 and further mentions as below:-
“you are requested to inspect these files during the office working hours and point out the documents sought by you as per RTI Act (2005) in your letter, so as to allow us to xerox these copies after necessary payment.”
--2/-
-- 2 --
Appellant has also filed Exhibit G from which it appears that he attended the office of PIO on 30/05/2011 and asked for “ALL” information without any specification. Thus, it may be stated that he had not shown any clarity in asking for specific information.
He has also filed exhibit B which is his first appeal to the FAA, filed on 17/06/2011. In this Appeal memo he has not made any reference to exhibit E, F, or G but has simply claimed that he has not received any information from PIO within stipulated time. The Appeal was rejected by FAA in his Appeal No. 231/2011 dated 13/07/2011 the FAA has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the Appeal has been filed after a delay of nearly 1&1/2 years for which appellant did not give any justification nor any application for condonation of delay.
Thereafter Respondent has filed second Appeal by simply mentioning that he did not receive a reply to his RTI application dated 15/12/2009 and further that the Appeal filed before FAA on 17/06/2011 has been dismissed. He has not given argument as to why the Order of FAA is wrong or unjustified. Although this second appeal memo mentions that he is attaching annexure E, F & G, nothing has been stated by him about their relevance in the present case. In the prayer clause at para B of his second appeal he has asked for some additional information which pertains to the organization of PWD and these questions ore not a part and parcel of his original RTI application. Thus they are beyond the scope of this second appeal.
The PIO has filed his reply on 1/11/2011 to the second Appeal. In the roznama dated 01/11/2011 recorded by the then SCIC himself, it is mentioned that copy of reply of the PIO has been received by the Appellant. In this reply the PIO has pointed out at para 6 that the exhibit submitted at annexure E, F & G pertain to some different questions and have no relevance to present case. He has also mentioned that the appellant who is a contractor was a regular visitor to their office and had verbally informed that he does not require information. PIO has also taken the ground of delay for which reason the First Appeal was dismissed and requested for the dismissal of second appeal too. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to this reply.
…3/-
-- 3 –
Considering all this I agree with the PIO that the Appellant has not given satisfactory reasons for delay and that the exhibits E, F & G which have no relevance to his original RTI, have been included in Second Appeal. This appears to have been done in order to circumvent the necessity of explaining delay. In view of this I find that the Appeal deserves no merit.
Second Appeal is therefore dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner, Panaji-Goa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal 72/SIC/2013 on: 20/11/2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 72/SIC/2013
Decided on: 20/11/2013
(dismissed)
Shri Francisco A. Soares,
R/O. H. No. 1015, 1st Bairro,
Santa Cruz, near the Church Tiswadi, Goa
V/s.
1. The Commissioner, Corporation of City of
Panaji/
P.I.O., Panaji, Goa
2. The Member Secretary,
Directorate of Municipal Administration &
First Appellate Authority, Panaji, Goa
O R D E R (Open Court)
This appeal is filed on 10/06/2013 and notices were issued on 20/11/2013. The Appellant submitted through his representative, a letter of authority stating that he has appointed Mr. C. S. Barreto to represent him in this Commission. On the same day the authorized agent namely C. S. Barreto has submitted application which states as under:-
“That as he has been provided with the information sought for by him in terms of his complaint dated 28th March, 2013 he hereby withdraws his said Complaint and the same may please be treated as filed.”
The case is therefore dismissed and closed. This decision is declared orally in the open court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner, Panaji-Goa.
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 72/SIC/2013
Decided on: 20/11/2013
(dismissed)
Shri Francisco A. Soares,
R/O. H. No. 1015, 1st Bairro,
Santa Cruz, near the Church Tiswadi, Goa
V/s.
1. The Commissioner, Corporation of City of
Panaji/
P.I.O., Panaji, Goa
2. The Member Secretary,
Directorate of Municipal Administration &
First Appellate Authority, Panaji, Goa
O R D E R (Open Court)
This appeal is filed on 10/06/2013 and notices were issued on 20/11/2013. The Appellant submitted through his representative, a letter of authority stating that he has appointed Mr. C. S. Barreto to represent him in this Commission. On the same day the authorized agent namely C. S. Barreto has submitted application which states as under:-
“That as he has been provided with the information sought for by him in terms of his complaint dated 28th March, 2013 he hereby withdraws his said Complaint and the same may please be treated as filed.”
The case is therefore dismissed and closed. This decision is declared orally in the open court. Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner, Panaji-Goa.
Appeal.121/SIC/2013 on 11/04/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa
Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal no.121/SIC/2013
Decided on 11/04/2014
(dismissed)
K.S.Ghate,
H.No.648,Janaki Niwas,
Assagao, Badem,
Post. Anjuna,
Bardez-Goa ……Appellant
V/s
1) The Public Information Officer,
CRZ management Authority,
Dept. of Science, technology & environment,
Govt. of .Goa, Opp. Saligao Seminary,
P.O. Saligao, Bardez-Goa. ………Respondent no. 1
2) Mr. Michael. M. D’souza,
Ex member (GCZMA) &
Director/Ex-office, joint Secretary (STE)
Behind Mapusa Police Station,
Opp. Pramod Garage, Near Homeo Clinic
Ansabhat, Mapusa, Bardez –Goa. ……...... Respondent no 2
Appellant present self
Adv. R. Kalangutkar for Respondent no 1
O R D E R (Open Court)
This appeal filed on 06/09/2013, arises out of original RTI application dated 26/08/2013. On perusal of question and answer and on hearing both the sides for some time, it is seen that there is some force in the plea of the PIO when he submits that the questions asked by the appellant are without any background introduction and are unclear in nature. I tend to agree with the PIO.
This aspect has been mutually discussed by the both parties. The appellant now wishes to ask a fresh question regarding survey no 25/6 of Assagaon and regarding a structure standing thereon. Allowed. Such a question, even if a repetition of his earlier question, shall be properly replied to by the PIO i.e.
respondent no 1 within one month, as required under RTI Act. Failing this the Appellant will be permitted to file his complaint directly to the SCIC.
With this direction the present appeal dismissed. Declared in the Open Court. Inform Parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 23/SIC/2013 on 11.11.2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal No. 23/SIC/2013
Decided on 11.11.2013
(dismissed)
Mr. Marshal D’ Mello,
Attorney, Communidade De Moira,
Communidade House, Moira Bardez-Goa.
V/s
1. PIO, Dy. Collector (LA),
O/o. Collector of North Goa, Panaji-Goa.
2. PIO, Dy. Collector (Rev),
O/o. Collector of North Goa, Panaji-Goa.
3. FAA, The Collector ,
North Goa, Panaji-Goa. …..Respondents
Appellant in person present
Respondent No. 2 present
Respondent no. 1 and 3 absent
O R D E R (Oral)
This case has a little unusual background, as compared to normal cases under RTI Act 2005. It is seen from the record that on 10/02/2012, Mr. Marshel D’Mello who is the Appellant herein, filed an application under RTI to the APIO/PIO, Office of the Collector of North Goa, Panaji, Eventually he was required to file First Appeal too, which he claims to have done on 20/07/2012.
A mere letter addressed to FAA has been handed over to this office on 30/01/2013 which does not even confirm that his first appeal has actually been received in the office of First Appellate Authority. On the said date, the post of SCIC (State Chief Information Commissioner) as well as of SIC (State Information Commissioner) were both vacant, but the Registrar has treated this copy as Appeal and registered it as Appeal No. 23/SIC/2013. He issued notices to Shri Marshel D’Mello as well as to PIO (Public Information Officer) and FAA (First Appellate Authority) fixing hearing on 03/06/2013 The case appears on the notice board on all subsequent days when the post of SCIC and SIC were both vacant .
-2-
When the case came up for hearing before me on 11/11/2013, this entire anomaly was noted by me. In view of this, the matter numbered as Appeal No. 23/SIC/2013 is hereby dismissed as premature. The FAA namely Collector of North Goa may dispose the first appeal of Marshel D’Mello dated 20th July, 2012 as per the law, if already it has been received by him. Needless to say that appellant retains his right for 2nd appeal if he is not satisfied with the order of FAA (First Appellate Authority).
Matter in Appeal 23/SIC/2013 is dismissed in the above manner. The Order was pronounced in the Open Court. Inform all parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 129/SCIC/2011 on 06/01/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji- Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 129/SCIC/2011
Decided on 06/01/2014
(dismissed)
Shri Rui Ferreira, ----- Appellant
H.No. E-1, Near Panjim Church ,
Panaji Goa. 403 001.
V/s
G.M. Redker,
Public Information Officer
Asst. Registrar High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Panaji – Goa.----- Respondent No. 1
I.K. Jain,
First Appellate Authority,
Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Panaji – Goa.
----- Respondent No. 2
O R D E R
This second Appeal is filed on 13/06/2011 and it arises out of RTI application against the PIO and Assistant Registrar of High court of Bombay at Goa and also against Respondent No. 2 who is the FAA and the Registrar of High court of Bombay.
The Respondent No. 1 has submitted on 25/05/2012 that any Appeal preferred against the order of the Appellate Authority ( High Court ) under Right to Information does not lie before the State Information Commission but before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
Towards this the respondent has cited 3 cases decided by Chief Information Commissioner of Central Government. First is the file No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01137 dated. 13/03/2009 and the following paragraphs are quoted.
“The appellant submitted an application under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 16.04.2008 seeking 11 items of information”.
When the appellant did not receive any reply from the First Appellate Authority within the time prescribed, he submitted second –appeal before this Commission on 08.08.2008.
The First Appellate Authority in the meanwhile rejected the appeal petition filed by the appellant.
2/-
--2--
The appellant was also advised that if he feels aggrieved with the above order, he may prefer second – appeal before the State Information Commission, Bombay within 90 days of the receipt of the letter. However, the appellant in his letter dated 12.9.2008, a copy whereof has been marked to this Commission, has stated that he did not receive any of the communications stated to have been sent to him by the PIO of the Bombay High Court.
PIO by his note dated 15.10.2008 also informed the Registrar General of the High Court that by letter dated. 14.8.2008, PIO had already informed the appellant that 2nd appellate authority is the State Information Commission but since the appellant has already filed 2nd appeal before the Central Information Commission in which he has not made any specific request, therefore, the said letter should be filed without taking any action.
The PIO and the Appellate Authority submitted a combined written reply before this Commission on 29.01.2009 stating, inter-alia, as under:
i) The second-appeal is not maintainable as it should have been filed before the State Information Commission.
ii) Reasons and justification being sought in respect of judicial proceedings do not come within the ambit of Right to Information Act in view of judgement of the High Court in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex- Officio Joint Commission” ( 2004 Volo.110(4) Bombay L.R. 1238).
Since the Central as well as the State Information Commissions are constituted by the respective Governments, their jurisdiction will naturally be separate and distinct. What would come within the domain of the State would fall within the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission and whatever is within the domain of the Union of India will be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission.
The constitution and organization of the High Courts is within the legislative ambit of the Parliament under Entry 78 to the Schedule VII of the Constitution. Article 231 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or two or more States and Union Territories. Thus, all the High Courts as Public Authorities under the Right to Information Act 2005 will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission and not State Information Commission. The issue is decided accordingly.”
He has also cited the judgement of CIC New Delhi in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001527 dated 21/05/2012 which is against the PIO of High Court at Bombay and also other citation which is file No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001149 dated. 21/05/2012 against the PIO and Registrar of Rajasthan High Court. These matters came up nearly 3 years after the 1st citation supra, and the CIC has reiterated the stand that 2nd appeal against the order of Registrar of High Court (being first appellate authority) shall lie with CIC and not with State CIC.
3/-
-3-
Coming back to the present matter, it could not be taken up for hearing between August 2012 to October 2013 as the post of SCIC was lying vacant. Then the case came up for hearing on 27/11/2013.
Respondent No. 1 referred to the above citation. He also submitted the gazette notification published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on Saturday 16th December 2006, under which the High Court of Bombay have declared the PIO’s and Appellate Authority for various courts working under jurisdiction. This gazette does not give any information regarding the 2nd Appellate Authority.
In view of the above the Respondent prays that the second Appeal may be dismissed, not being under the jurisdiction of SCIC.
The Appellant has submitted the rejoinder on 06/01/2014 giving various reasons as to why the SCIC should be declared as having jurisdiction. His main reliance is on the fact that the salaries of the members of High Court Bombay at Goa are paid by the State of Goa.
However, I agree with the argument of Respondent and more specifically with the citation indicating how the CIC Delhi has been deciding second appeals arising against the FAA, and the Registrar of various High Courts. It is nevertheless necessary to point out that in all future first appeals under RTI Act 2005, the First Appellate Authority of the Mumbai High Court of Bombay should specifically mention in all future cases that the second appeal shall lie with the Central Chief Information Commissioner at Delhi.
With the above observations, the second appeal is dismissed. Declared in open Court.
Inform the parties.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji – Goa.
Appeal 173/SIC/2012????????????????????????
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 173/SIC/2012, ?????????????????????????
(withdrawn)
Deepak Fadke, Panaji
v/s
(1) PIO, IGP, Panaji
(2) FAA, IGP, Panaji-Goa.
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke (Self)
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Court)
17.12.2013
This appeal is filed on 09/10/2012 in respect of RTI Application dated 11/07/2012 filed by the appellant before respondent no.1. The appellant is an Advocate himself. Today at the time of hearing he has submitted application requesting permission to withdraw the Appeal.
Permission granted. Case is dismissed as withdrawn. Order announced in the open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 173/SIC/2012, ?????????????????????????
(withdrawn)
Deepak Fadke, Panaji
v/s
(1) PIO, IGP, Panaji
(2) FAA, IGP, Panaji-Goa.
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke (Self)
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Court)
17.12.2013
This appeal is filed on 09/10/2012 in respect of RTI Application dated 11/07/2012 filed by the appellant before respondent no.1. The appellant is an Advocate himself. Today at the time of hearing he has submitted application requesting permission to withdraw the Appeal.
Permission granted. Case is dismissed as withdrawn. Order announced in the open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 172/SIC/2012??????????????????????
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 172/SIC/2012 ??????????????????????/
(withdrawn)
Shri. Deepak Fadke,
C/o. 306, Gera Imperium,
Patto Plaza, Goa
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Inspector General of Prisons,
Having Office at Collector Building,
Panaji-Goa.
2) The First Appellate Authority,
Inspector General of Police,
Panaji-Goa.
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke (Self)
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Cort)
17.12.2013
This appeal is filed on 09/10/2012. The appellant is represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke. Today at the time of hearing the Advocate has submitted application regarding permission to withdraw the Appeal.
Permission granted. Case is dismissed as withdrawn. Order announced in the open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 172/SIC/2012 ??????????????????????/
(withdrawn)
Shri. Deepak Fadke,
C/o. 306, Gera Imperium,
Patto Plaza, Goa
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Inspector General of Prisons,
Having Office at Collector Building,
Panaji-Goa.
2) The First Appellate Authority,
Inspector General of Police,
Panaji-Goa.
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke (Self)
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Cort)
17.12.2013
This appeal is filed on 09/10/2012. The appellant is represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke. Today at the time of hearing the Advocate has submitted application regarding permission to withdraw the Appeal.
Permission granted. Case is dismissed as withdrawn. Order announced in the open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 88/SIC/2013 on: 04/03/2014
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 88/SIC/2013
Decided on: 04/03/2014
(remanded)
Shri Uday A.C. Priolkar,
R/o H.No. C5/55,
Mala, Panaji – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer, Div.III,
St. Inez, Panaji, Goa
2) Manager,
P.W.D., Labour Supply Society,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa
3) The First Appellate Authority,
Superintendent of Surveys,
P.W.D., Altinho, Goa.
O R D E R (Open Court)
Appellant as well as present First Appellate Authority (Shri Prabhakar Gupta) are present. There is ambignity in the Order passed by the then FAA, to the extent that he has not clarified which part of the appeal he is allowing. I therefore find it fit to remand the matter back to FAA.
Appellant will initiate by giving a simple application to present FAA to reopen this matter and fix appeal hearing. On receipt, the FAA shall reopen and hear the appeal with 30 (thirty) days. Appellant shall be allowed to bring extra facts on record, if available. Needless to state that appellant retains his right to a fresh Second Appeal after the decision of FAA.
Present case is disposed as above. Order pronounced in Open Court. Parties informed in open Court.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 88/SIC/2013
Decided on: 04/03/2014
(remanded)
Shri Uday A.C. Priolkar,
R/o H.No. C5/55,
Mala, Panaji – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer, Div.III,
St. Inez, Panaji, Goa
2) Manager,
P.W.D., Labour Supply Society,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa
3) The First Appellate Authority,
Superintendent of Surveys,
P.W.D., Altinho, Goa.
O R D E R (Open Court)
Appellant as well as present First Appellate Authority (Shri Prabhakar Gupta) are present. There is ambignity in the Order passed by the then FAA, to the extent that he has not clarified which part of the appeal he is allowing. I therefore find it fit to remand the matter back to FAA.
Appellant will initiate by giving a simple application to present FAA to reopen this matter and fix appeal hearing. On receipt, the FAA shall reopen and hear the appeal with 30 (thirty) days. Appellant shall be allowed to bring extra facts on record, if available. Needless to state that appellant retains his right to a fresh Second Appeal after the decision of FAA.
Present case is disposed as above. Order pronounced in Open Court. Parties informed in open Court.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Panaji-Goa
**** Appeal 19/SCIC/2013 on: 06/01/2014 -- Goa Table Tennis Association,
Goa Table Tennis Association,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
****Appeal 19/SCIC/2013
Decided on: 06/01/2014
(allowed)
Mr. Sandeep Heble
BF-1, Astral Gardens, Santismo Wado,
Taleigao – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Sports Authority of Goa,
Myles High Building, Near KTC
Bus-stand, Panaji – Goa
2) Goa Table Tennis Association,
Through its President,
Mr. Vero Nunes,
C/o. Bambolim Beach Resort,
Bambolim-Goa
3) First Appellate Authority,
Sports Authority of Goa,
Myles High Building, Near KTC
Bus-stand, Panaji – Goa
Respondent No. 2 – Through Adv. Talaulikar
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Second Appeal is filed on 06/02/2013. It arises out of the RTI application filed before the Public Information Officer of Sports Authority of Goa (SAG) filed in respect of Goa Table Tennis Association, following applications were filed.
1) Application 1 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 6
2) Application 2 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 9
3) Application 3 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 2
4) Application 4 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 8
5) Application 5 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 16
…2/-
-- 2 --
6) Application 6 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 4
7) Application 7 dated 28/06/2012, No. of Questions 5
8) Application 8 dated 27/06/2012, No. of Questions 20
With these questions the applicant has virtually asked about the entire record of the Goa Table Tennis Association for last few years.
Before I proceed with the order it is pertinent to note that the Government of Goa has issued Guidelines initially vide No. SAG/Co/Gen-Corres/2010/552 dated 14/05/2010 whose subject reads as below,
“Guidelines pertaining to RTI Act 2005 to be adhered by the Sports Associations/Clubs, recognized/registered with SAG.”
This is addressed to the President/Secretary to all the State Sports Association. This has also been notified in the Gazette of Government of Goa on 08/07/2010. More particularly, I find para 2 of this Guidelines as more relevant to the present case and is quoted below,
“By virtue of applicability of the RTI provisions, your Association/Sports Club shall promptly furnish the requisite information sought by the citizen(s) of India, within the meaning of RTI Act, 2005 and Section 3 thereof and provide such details to this office, or directly to the applicant, as the case may be, as laid down under Section 2(h) of this Act, as reproduced in the Annexure attached herewith for your ready reference. You are also advised to immediately procure a copy of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”, from the Govt. of Goa, Department of Information and Publicity, Panaji for your record and reference.”
It is also pertinent to use the citation of Sanjay Bharve v/s Goa Chess Association by which the Goa State Chief Information Commissioner has, by order dated 22/11/2011 held that “Guidelines dated 08/07/2010 stand, unless declared otherwise”.
Coming back to the case, as the original RTI applicant (present appellant) did not receive any replies, he filed Six (6) RTI First Appeals on 17/08/2012 and two (2) on 22/08/2012.
Ignoring these details of his RTI applications and First Appeals we can come straight to the fact that on 22/08/2012 he submitted yet another prayer to the First Appellate Authority referring to all the Eight (8) appeals and restating/redrafting some specific questions claiming to be his priority questions. He describes it as having scaled down the information, sought by him through all the Eight (8) RTI applications. Thus, he would be satisfied by getting replies to his new questions at Sr. No. 1-9,10A-F and 11-17. In these First Appeals as well as in the separate prayer he has implended the Goa Table Tennis Association through its president as second respondent.
From the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 07/11/2012 it is seen that he has given opportunity to both the respondents before him. The Respondent No. 2 raised point of jurisdiction challenging the guidelines gazetted on 08/07/2010 by the department of Sports which proclaims that all the Sports Associations/Sports Club registered in Sports Authority of Goa are covered under RTI Act. The Respondent No. 2 claimed before First Appellate Authority that the said Guidelines were ultravirus to the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority therefore framed 2 questions for his considerations and answered as below,
I.Does the Government Guidelines dated 08/07/2010 stand – Yes, In view of the order of the SCIC quoted supra. It is therefore held that Goa Table Tennis Association is a Public Authority under RTI Act.
II.In the absence of Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority appointed by the respondent Association, whether information can be denied to the appellant – No, in view of the same Judgment of the State Information Commissioner, non appointment of Public Information Officer does not per se defeat the provisions of the Act and the Respondent Association must take recourse to the guideline dated 08/07/2010 and furnish the information to the PIO of Sports Authority of Goa who is Respondent No.1.
Thus discussing, the First Appellate Authority has passed order on 07/11/2012 directing that the Respondent No. 2 should furnish information to the Applicant as sought by him in letter dated 20/08/2012 within a period of 10 days from the date of his order.
The Goa Table Tennis Association having failed to comply with the direction of the First Appellate Authority in Sports Authority of Goa this Second Appeal has been filed.
Notices were issued to respondent No. 1 namely PIO of Sports Authority of Goa, Respondent No. 2 namely Goa Table Tennis Association through its president and Respondent No. 3 namely First Appellate Authority. None have filed any reply. The Respondent No. 2 he failed to remain present on all the dates fixed for hearing though on some dates their Adv. Talaulikar has remained present. In view of this it has to be concluded that the Respondent No. 2 has failed to fulfill their obligations under the RTI Act even to attend to the hearing where they are impleaded as parties. I therefore proceed to pass the final order.
To begin with, Respondent No. 2 has failed to comply with the directives of Government gazette notification dated 08/07/2010 and also failed to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority hence they are liable for action under Section 20(1).
The First Appellate Authority has not administratively proceeded to examine as to why the Respondent No. 2 has failed to appoint a PIO and FAA within their own organization as required by the notification dated 08/07/2010 and has also failed to take necessary administrative action against them..
The First Appellate Authority has not proceeded as per requirements of good administration, to examine whether any grants or concessional land or any other Government recognition or help is being given to Respondent No. 2 at present and whether the same needs to be withdrawn in view of the refusal of Respondent No. 2 so far to comply with the said notification defining their obligation under the RTI Act.
Hence I pass following Order:-
1.The Appeal is allowed.
2.The Respondent No. 2 shall give the information as requested by the appellant in his letter dated 22/08/2012, within 15 days from receiving this order.
3.Respondent No. 2 to take steps to appoint Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
4.On appointment of PIO for the Table Tennis Association, the PIO to deal with all RTI applications having regard to the time frame as prescribed by the RTI Act.
5.Registry to issue notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to Respondent No. 2 asking why Penalty action should not be taken against the president in person and against the Goa Table Tennis Association.
6.Also issue notice under Section 20(2) to the Director of Sports Authority of Goa asking him to explain what administrative actions he has taken for ensuring that the various Sports Associations comply with the gazette notification dated 08/07/2010.
Appeal is allowed as above. Operative part is pronounced in Open Court. Parties to be informed of this detailed order.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
****Appeal 19/SCIC/2013
Decided on: 06/01/2014
(allowed)
Mr. Sandeep Heble
BF-1, Astral Gardens, Santismo Wado,
Taleigao – Goa.
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Sports Authority of Goa,
Myles High Building, Near KTC
Bus-stand, Panaji – Goa
2) Goa Table Tennis Association,
Through its President,
Mr. Vero Nunes,
C/o. Bambolim Beach Resort,
Bambolim-Goa
3) First Appellate Authority,
Sports Authority of Goa,
Myles High Building, Near KTC
Bus-stand, Panaji – Goa
Respondent No. 2 – Through Adv. Talaulikar
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Second Appeal is filed on 06/02/2013. It arises out of the RTI application filed before the Public Information Officer of Sports Authority of Goa (SAG) filed in respect of Goa Table Tennis Association, following applications were filed.
1) Application 1 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 6
2) Application 2 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 9
3) Application 3 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 2
4) Application 4 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 8
5) Application 5 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 16
…2/-
-- 2 --
6) Application 6 dated 19/06/2012, No. of Questions 4
7) Application 7 dated 28/06/2012, No. of Questions 5
8) Application 8 dated 27/06/2012, No. of Questions 20
With these questions the applicant has virtually asked about the entire record of the Goa Table Tennis Association for last few years.
Before I proceed with the order it is pertinent to note that the Government of Goa has issued Guidelines initially vide No. SAG/Co/Gen-Corres/2010/552 dated 14/05/2010 whose subject reads as below,
“Guidelines pertaining to RTI Act 2005 to be adhered by the Sports Associations/Clubs, recognized/registered with SAG.”
This is addressed to the President/Secretary to all the State Sports Association. This has also been notified in the Gazette of Government of Goa on 08/07/2010. More particularly, I find para 2 of this Guidelines as more relevant to the present case and is quoted below,
“By virtue of applicability of the RTI provisions, your Association/Sports Club shall promptly furnish the requisite information sought by the citizen(s) of India, within the meaning of RTI Act, 2005 and Section 3 thereof and provide such details to this office, or directly to the applicant, as the case may be, as laid down under Section 2(h) of this Act, as reproduced in the Annexure attached herewith for your ready reference. You are also advised to immediately procure a copy of the “Right to Information Act, 2005”, from the Govt. of Goa, Department of Information and Publicity, Panaji for your record and reference.”
It is also pertinent to use the citation of Sanjay Bharve v/s Goa Chess Association by which the Goa State Chief Information Commissioner has, by order dated 22/11/2011 held that “Guidelines dated 08/07/2010 stand, unless declared otherwise”.
Coming back to the case, as the original RTI applicant (present appellant) did not receive any replies, he filed Six (6) RTI First Appeals on 17/08/2012 and two (2) on 22/08/2012.
Ignoring these details of his RTI applications and First Appeals we can come straight to the fact that on 22/08/2012 he submitted yet another prayer to the First Appellate Authority referring to all the Eight (8) appeals and restating/redrafting some specific questions claiming to be his priority questions. He describes it as having scaled down the information, sought by him through all the Eight (8) RTI applications. Thus, he would be satisfied by getting replies to his new questions at Sr. No. 1-9,10A-F and 11-17. In these First Appeals as well as in the separate prayer he has implended the Goa Table Tennis Association through its president as second respondent.
From the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 07/11/2012 it is seen that he has given opportunity to both the respondents before him. The Respondent No. 2 raised point of jurisdiction challenging the guidelines gazetted on 08/07/2010 by the department of Sports which proclaims that all the Sports Associations/Sports Club registered in Sports Authority of Goa are covered under RTI Act. The Respondent No. 2 claimed before First Appellate Authority that the said Guidelines were ultravirus to the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority therefore framed 2 questions for his considerations and answered as below,
I.Does the Government Guidelines dated 08/07/2010 stand – Yes, In view of the order of the SCIC quoted supra. It is therefore held that Goa Table Tennis Association is a Public Authority under RTI Act.
II.In the absence of Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority appointed by the respondent Association, whether information can be denied to the appellant – No, in view of the same Judgment of the State Information Commissioner, non appointment of Public Information Officer does not per se defeat the provisions of the Act and the Respondent Association must take recourse to the guideline dated 08/07/2010 and furnish the information to the PIO of Sports Authority of Goa who is Respondent No.1.
Thus discussing, the First Appellate Authority has passed order on 07/11/2012 directing that the Respondent No. 2 should furnish information to the Applicant as sought by him in letter dated 20/08/2012 within a period of 10 days from the date of his order.
The Goa Table Tennis Association having failed to comply with the direction of the First Appellate Authority in Sports Authority of Goa this Second Appeal has been filed.
Notices were issued to respondent No. 1 namely PIO of Sports Authority of Goa, Respondent No. 2 namely Goa Table Tennis Association through its president and Respondent No. 3 namely First Appellate Authority. None have filed any reply. The Respondent No. 2 he failed to remain present on all the dates fixed for hearing though on some dates their Adv. Talaulikar has remained present. In view of this it has to be concluded that the Respondent No. 2 has failed to fulfill their obligations under the RTI Act even to attend to the hearing where they are impleaded as parties. I therefore proceed to pass the final order.
To begin with, Respondent No. 2 has failed to comply with the directives of Government gazette notification dated 08/07/2010 and also failed to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority hence they are liable for action under Section 20(1).
The First Appellate Authority has not administratively proceeded to examine as to why the Respondent No. 2 has failed to appoint a PIO and FAA within their own organization as required by the notification dated 08/07/2010 and has also failed to take necessary administrative action against them..
The First Appellate Authority has not proceeded as per requirements of good administration, to examine whether any grants or concessional land or any other Government recognition or help is being given to Respondent No. 2 at present and whether the same needs to be withdrawn in view of the refusal of Respondent No. 2 so far to comply with the said notification defining their obligation under the RTI Act.
Hence I pass following Order:-
1.The Appeal is allowed.
2.The Respondent No. 2 shall give the information as requested by the appellant in his letter dated 22/08/2012, within 15 days from receiving this order.
3.Respondent No. 2 to take steps to appoint Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
4.On appointment of PIO for the Table Tennis Association, the PIO to deal with all RTI applications having regard to the time frame as prescribed by the RTI Act.
5.Registry to issue notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to Respondent No. 2 asking why Penalty action should not be taken against the president in person and against the Goa Table Tennis Association.
6.Also issue notice under Section 20(2) to the Director of Sports Authority of Goa asking him to explain what administrative actions he has taken for ensuring that the various Sports Associations comply with the gazette notification dated 08/07/2010.
Appeal is allowed as above. Operative part is pronounced in Open Court. Parties to be informed of this detailed order.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
Appeal 13/SIC/2013 (or is it 13/SIC/2012 ???) on 26.11.2013
GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 13/SIC/2013 (OR should it be 2012 -- as per filing date 12/01/2012 ??? -- but could have been wrongly numbered 13/SIC/2013 )
Decided on 26.11.2013
(dismissed)
J. A. Mendonca,
H. No. 458, Ararim, Socorro,
P. O. Porvorim, Bardez, Goa
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Superintendent of Police (H.Q.), Panaji-Goa
2) The Public Information Officer,
Superintendent of Police (South), Margao-Goa
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Second Appeal under RTI Act (2005), which was filed on 12/01/2012, arises out of original RTI application dated 24/06/2011 to the PIO in the department of Police. The Respondent No. 2 who is the PIO in the office of Superintendent Police (South) has filed his reply to the Second appeal on 02/07/2012. I have gone through the appeal memo, the reply of Respondent No. 2 and the order of the First Appellate Authority which is passed on 29/09/2011.
In addition Advocate for Respondent No. 2 also explained the situation orally to the Appellant. On hearing the same the Appellant is satisfied about the overall status of the case and consented that matter may be closed.
It is worthwhile to mention the subject matter in brief. The Appellant who is a Government employee, working in the Police department had undergone a departmental proceeding under which a penalty was imposed on him. It had an effect on his increment, pay and future increment etc. He was under some doubt as to the nature of order passed in the matter and its effect on his overall future increments.
Now after the situation has been explained to him regarding his increment, he was satisfied about the present status of his RTI application and hence agrees that the matter may be closed.
In view of this the appeal is dismissed as it requires no further action. Order pronounced in open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/- (Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner Panaji-Goa
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza,
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Appeal 13/SIC/2013 (OR should it be 2012 -- as per filing date 12/01/2012 ??? -- but could have been wrongly numbered 13/SIC/2013 )
Decided on 26.11.2013
(dismissed)
J. A. Mendonca,
H. No. 458, Ararim, Socorro,
P. O. Porvorim, Bardez, Goa
V/s
1) Public Information Officer,
Superintendent of Police (H.Q.), Panaji-Goa
2) The Public Information Officer,
Superintendent of Police (South), Margao-Goa
Appellant Represented by Adv. Deepak Fadke
Respondent no. 1 and 2 Represented by self.
O R D E R (Open Court)
This Second Appeal under RTI Act (2005), which was filed on 12/01/2012, arises out of original RTI application dated 24/06/2011 to the PIO in the department of Police. The Respondent No. 2 who is the PIO in the office of Superintendent Police (South) has filed his reply to the Second appeal on 02/07/2012. I have gone through the appeal memo, the reply of Respondent No. 2 and the order of the First Appellate Authority which is passed on 29/09/2011.
In addition Advocate for Respondent No. 2 also explained the situation orally to the Appellant. On hearing the same the Appellant is satisfied about the overall status of the case and consented that matter may be closed.
It is worthwhile to mention the subject matter in brief. The Appellant who is a Government employee, working in the Police department had undergone a departmental proceeding under which a penalty was imposed on him. It had an effect on his increment, pay and future increment etc. He was under some doubt as to the nature of order passed in the matter and its effect on his overall future increments.
Now after the situation has been explained to him regarding his increment, he was satisfied about the present status of his RTI application and hence agrees that the matter may be closed.
In view of this the appeal is dismissed as it requires no further action. Order pronounced in open court.
Inform the parties.
. Sd/- (Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner Panaji-Goa
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Index of My RTI Judgements, as SCIC Goa
Index of My RTI Judgements, as SCIC Goa
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 210 of 2012 Namit Sharma … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent
J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. September 13, 2012
" We are of the considered view that it is an unquestionable proposition of law that the Commission is a ‘judicial tribunal’ performing functions of ‘judicial’ as well as ‘quasijudicial’ nature and having the trappings of a Court. It is an important cog and is part of the court attached system of administration of justice, unlike a ministerial tribunal which is more influenced and controlled and performs functions akin to the machinery of administration. 7. It will be just, fair and proper that the first appellate authority (i.e. the senior officers to be nominated in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 2005) preferably should be the 104 persons possessing a degree in law or having adequate knowledge and experience in the field of law. 8. The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. 9. The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice 105 of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be. 10. The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore-recorded. 11. The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section 12(3), for final recommendation to the President of India. Needless to repeat that the High Powered Committee at the Centre and the State levels is expected to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending the names for appointment to the competent authority. 12. The selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy. 13. This judgment shall have effect only prospectively" -- The EPITOME of THAPPA SANSKRITI (Later modified by larger bench of SC)
Appeal 308/SCIC/2008 on 22/07/2014
YEAR 2009
Complaint
Compl 101/SIC/2009 on 05/08/2014
YEAR 2010
Appeal
Appeal 78-SIC-2010 on 29-04-2014
Appeal 80/SIC/2010-w- on 29/04/2014
Appeal 81/SIC/2010 on 29/04/2014
Appeal 174/SIC/2010-R- on 17/12/2014
***Appeal 222/SCIC/2010 on : 12/12/2014 दुर्भाटकर
Appeal 575/SCIC/2010
Appeal 78/SIC/2010 Decided on. 29/04/2014
Complaint
Comp 597/SIC/2010-P- on: 18/06/2014
Penalty
Pena No 13/2010 in Appeal 24/SCIC/2010-f - on ???
Penalty: 69/2010 In Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010 Decided on 14/04/2014
YEAR 2011
Appeal
Appeal 78/SCIC/2011+122/SCIC/2011-W- on 18/06/2014
Complaint
Comp 36/SIC/2012 on: 23/07/2014
Comp 38/SIC/2011 + Comp 595/SIC/2010 + Appeal No. 190/SIC/2011-W-on 18/06/2014
Complaint No. 56/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
******Comp 64/SCIC/2011 Interim order pronounced on 07/01/2015
Complaint No. 101/SIC/2012 Decided on :30/10/2014
Comp 109/SCIC/2011 on: 28/11/2014
Comp 133/SIC/2011+78/SIC/2012-W-on 04/08/2014
Complaint 143/SIC/2012 Decided on 06.02.2014
Complaint No. 147/SCIC/2011 Decided on : 08/12/2014
Complaint No. 158/SCIC/2011 Decided on 20/11/2014
Complaint No. 170/SCIC/2011 Decided on 27/08/2014
Comp 178/SCIC/2011 on 20/08/2014
Complaint No. 181/SCIC/2011 INTERIM ORDER Dated:- 11/12/2014
Comp 510/SIC/2010 on: 26/09/2014
Comp 511/SIC/2010 on: 15/10/2014
Penalty
YEAR 2012
Appeal
Appeal 12/SCIC/2012 + Appeal 14/SCIC/2012 on: 23/04/2014
Appeal 13-SIC-2012
Appeal 45-SIC-2012 and Penalty 33-2014 on 20/11/2014
Appeal 69/SCIC/2012
Appeal 70/SCIC/2012 on 31/01/2014
Appeal 94/SIC/2012 on 06/05/2014
Appeal 100+101/SCIC/2012-W-on 25/09/2014
Appeal 107-SIC-2012 on 11/08/2014
Appeal 118/SIC/2012 on 08/12/2014
Appeal 123/SIC/2012 on 11/11/20
Appeal 126-SCIC-2012 and Appeal 127-SCIC-2012 on 23/05/2014
Appeal 128/SCIC/2012 on 23/05/2014
Appeal No.135/SCIC/2012 Decided On. 23/09/2014
Appeal No. 126/SCIC/2012, Appeal No. 127/SCIC/2012 Decided on. 23/05/2014
Appeal No. 107/SIC/2012 Decided on. 11/08/2014
Appeal No. 17/SIC/2012 Decided on. 27/10/2014
Complaint
Complaint No. 12/SCIC/2012 Decided on: 28/11/2014
Comp 16/SCIC/2012 on: 21/05/2014
Comp 36/SIC/2012 on 14/11/2014
Complaint No. 55/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
Complaint No. 57/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
Complaint No. 61/SIC/2012 Interim Order dated: 06/01/2015
Complaint No. 73/SIC/2012 Decided on : 04/08/2014
Comp78+79/SIC/2012+ 133/SIC/2011-W-on 04/08/2014
Comp 83/SCIC/2012 + Comp 83/SCIC/2012 on 01/12/2014
Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012 and Penalty 20/2014 In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012 ???????
Compl 99/SIC/2012 on 25/04/2014
Complaint No. 114/SCIC/2012 Decided on:08/10/2014
Comp 118/SIC/2012 on 03/11/2014
Complaint No. 119/SIC/2012 Decided on: 28/10/2014
Complaint No:123/SIC/2012 Decided on:28/07/2014
ComplaintNo.125/SCIC/2012 Decided on 19/11/2014
Comp 131/SIC/2012 on:19/06/2014
Complaint No. 134/SCIC/2012 Decided on :19/11/2014
Compl 143/SIC/2012 on 06.02.2014
Complaint No: 148/SIC/2012 Decided on :13/02/2014
Comp 153/SCIC/2012 on: 22/04/2014
Comp 160/SIC/2012 on: 06/02/2014
Penalty
Penalty 02/2012 in Appeal 63/SIC/2011-F- on 09/01/2015
Penalty 03+04+05/2012-W- on 19/08/2014
Penalty 15/2012 on: 28/05/2014
Incoplete PenaltyNo.16/2012 in Complaint .80/SIC/2011 on. 20/05/2014
Pen No. 29/2012 In Appeal 10/SIC/2012 on 20/10/2014
Penalty 33/2012 on 21/05/2014
YEAR 2013
Appeal
YEAR 2014
Appeal
Appeal 73/SCIC/2014 on 06/01/2015
Appeal 83/SCIC/2014 on 15/01/2015
Appeal 102/SCIC/2014 on 17/11/2014
Appeal 109/SCIC/2014-W-on 12/11//2014
Complaint
ComplaintNo. 1/SCIC/2014
ComplaintNo.02/SCIC/2014 Decided on 25/11/2014
Compl 7/SIC/2014 on 5/11/2014- शांग्रीला सोसायटी
Complaint No. 15/SCIC/2014 Decided on: 18/11/2014
Complaint 16/SCIC/2014-P-on: 28/10/2014
Penalty
Penalty 09/2014 in Appeal 184/SCIC/2012 Interim Order on 26/08/2014
Penalty No. 12/2014 in Appeal 103/SCIC/2013 on 19/11/2014
Penalty 14/2014 & 15/2014 on 10/10/2014 --Table tennis Association
Penalty 20/2014 In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012
Penalty 23/2014 In Appeal 108/SIC/2012 on 14/08/2014
Penalty No. 34/2014
Penalty No. 39/2014 in Complaint No. 134/SCIC/2012 19-11-2014
INTERIM ORDERS
Appeal 148/SIC/2011 Interim Order 28 /11/2014
Comp 162/SCIC/2012
App 114/SCIC/2013
APP 79/SCIC/2013
ROJNAMA
App 175/SIC/2012
APP 79/SCIC/2013
APP 64/SCIC/2013
App 30/SIC/201
App 168/SCIC/2013
App 63/SIC/2012
.jpg)
.jpg)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 210 of 2012 Namit Sharma … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent
J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. September 13, 2012
" We are of the considered view that it is an unquestionable proposition of law that the Commission is a ‘judicial tribunal’ performing functions of ‘judicial’ as well as ‘quasijudicial’ nature and having the trappings of a Court. It is an important cog and is part of the court attached system of administration of justice, unlike a ministerial tribunal which is more influenced and controlled and performs functions akin to the machinery of administration. 7. It will be just, fair and proper that the first appellate authority (i.e. the senior officers to be nominated in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 2005) preferably should be the 104 persons possessing a degree in law or having adequate knowledge and experience in the field of law. 8. The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions. A law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of twenty years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners. Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. 9. The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice 105 of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be. 10. The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore-recorded. 11. The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section 12(3), for final recommendation to the President of India. Needless to repeat that the High Powered Committee at the Centre and the State levels is expected to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending the names for appointment to the competent authority. 12. The selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy. 13. This judgment shall have effect only prospectively" -- The EPITOME of THAPPA SANSKRITI (Later modified by larger bench of SC)
YEAR 2008
YEAR 2009
Complaint
Compl 101/SIC/2009 on 05/08/2014
YEAR 2010
Appeal
Appeal 78-SIC-2010 on 29-04-2014
Appeal 80/SIC/2010-w- on 29/04/2014
Appeal 81/SIC/2010 on 29/04/2014
Appeal 174/SIC/2010-R- on 17/12/2014
***Appeal 222/SCIC/2010 on : 12/12/2014 दुर्भाटकर
Appeal 575/SCIC/2010
Appeal 78/SIC/2010 Decided on. 29/04/2014
Complaint
Compliant18, 61,62/SIC/2010 Decided on 04/08/2014
Complaint No. 117/SIC/2010 Decided on 27/06/2014
Complaint No. 153/SIC/2010 Decided on 13/05/2014
Complaint No. 154/SIC/2010 Decided on 13/05/2014
Complaint No. 237/SIC/2010 Decided on 07/07/2014
Complaint No. 454/SIC/2010 Decided on 14/11/2014
Comp 483+496/SIC/2010-P- on: 18/06/2014
Complaint No. 117/SIC/2010 Decided on 27/06/2014
Complaint No. 153/SIC/2010 Decided on 13/05/2014
Complaint No. 154/SIC/2010 Decided on 13/05/2014
Complaint No. 237/SIC/2010 Decided on 07/07/2014
Complaint No. 454/SIC/2010 Decided on 14/11/2014
Comp 483+496/SIC/2010-P- on: 18/06/2014
Comp.572/SCIC/2010 on 13.01.2014
Comp 595/SIC/2010 +38/SIC/2011+ Appeal No. 190/SIC/2011-W-on 18/06/2014Comp 597/SIC/2010-P- on: 18/06/2014
Penalty
Pena No 13/2010 in Appeal 24/SCIC/2010-f - on ???
Penalty: 69/2010 In Complaint No. 450/SCIC/2010 Decided on 14/04/2014
YEAR 2011
Appeal
Appeal 78/SCIC/2011+122/SCIC/2011-W- on 18/06/2014
Appeal 123/SCIC/2011 on: 01/08/2014
Appeal 129/SCIC/2011 on 06/01/2014
Appeal 184/SCIC/2011 on 12/05/2014
Appeal 193/SCIC/2011 on: 13/01/2014
App 230-231/SCIC/2011???????????????
App 259/SIC/2011???????????????
Comp 36/SIC/2012 on: 23/07/2014
Comp 38/SIC/2011 + Comp 595/SIC/2010 + Appeal No. 190/SIC/2011-W-on 18/06/2014
Complaint No. 56/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
Comp 57/SIC/2011 on: 07/04/2014
Complaint No. 101/SIC/2012 Decided on :30/10/2014
Comp 109/SCIC/2011 on: 28/11/2014
Comp 133/SIC/2011+78/SIC/2012-W-on 04/08/2014
Complaint 143/SIC/2012 Decided on 06.02.2014
Complaint No. 147/SCIC/2011 Decided on : 08/12/2014
Complaint No. 158/SCIC/2011 Decided on 20/11/2014
Complaint No. 170/SCIC/2011 Decided on 27/08/2014
Comp 178/SCIC/2011 on 20/08/2014
Complaint No. 181/SCIC/2011 INTERIM ORDER Dated:- 11/12/2014
Comp 510/SIC/2010 on: 26/09/2014
Comp 511/SIC/2010 on: 15/10/2014
Penalty
Penalty No. 18/2011 In Appeal 207/SCIC/2010 on 23/06/2014
Penalty No. 29/2011 In Appeal 220/SCIC/2010 on 24/07/2014 निसा
Penalty No. 41/2011 in Appeal No. 51/SIC/2010
Pena No. 42/2011 In Appeal 152/SIC/2010 on 06/06/2014
Penalty 67/2011 ???????????????????
YEAR 2012
Appeal
Appeal 12/SCIC/2012 + Appeal 14/SCIC/2012 on: 23/04/2014
Appeal 13-SIC-2012
App 16/SIC/2012
APP 44/SCIC/2012Appeal 45-SIC-2012 and Penalty 33-2014 on 20/11/2014
Appeal 69/SCIC/2012
Appeal 70/SCIC/2012 on 31/01/2014
Appeal 94/SIC/2012 on 06/05/2014
Appeal 100+101/SCIC/2012-W-on 25/09/2014
Appeal 107-SIC-2012 on 11/08/2014
Appeal 118/SIC/2012 on 08/12/2014
Appeal 123/SIC/2012 on 11/11/20
Appeal 126-SCIC-2012 and Appeal 127-SCIC-2012 on 23/05/2014
Appeal 128/SCIC/2012 on 23/05/2014
Appeal 133/SIC/2012 on:24/04/2014
Appeal 151/SCIC/2012 on : 02/01/2014
Appeal 157/SCIC/2012 on 03/04/2014
Appeal 169/SIC/2012 on 02/12/2014
Appeal 157/SCIC/2012 on 03/04/2014
Appeal 169/SIC/2012 on 02/12/2014
Appeal 172/SIC/2012 on17.12.2013
Appeal 173/SIC/2012 on 17.12.2013
Appeal 179/SCIC/2012 on: 11/07/2014
Appeal 206/SIC/2012 on: 24/04/2014Appeal No.135/SCIC/2012 Decided On. 23/09/2014
Appeal No. 126/SCIC/2012, Appeal No. 127/SCIC/2012 Decided on. 23/05/2014
Appeal No. 107/SIC/2012 Decided on. 11/08/2014
Appeal No. 17/SIC/2012 Decided on. 27/10/2014
Complaint
Complaint No. 12/SCIC/2012 Decided on: 28/11/2014
Comp 16/SCIC/2012 on: 21/05/2014
Comp 36/SIC/2012 on 14/11/2014
Complaint No. 55/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
Complaint No. 57/SCIC/2012 Decided on 17/11/2014
Complaint No. 61/SIC/2012 Interim Order dated: 06/01/2015
Complaint No. 73/SIC/2012 Decided on : 04/08/2014
Comp78+79/SIC/2012+ 133/SIC/2011-W-on 04/08/2014
Comp 83/SCIC/2012 + Comp 83/SCIC/2012 on 01/12/2014
Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012 and Penalty 20/2014 In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012 ???????
Compl 99/SIC/2012 on 25/04/2014
Complaint No. 114/SCIC/2012 Decided on:08/10/2014
Comp 118/SIC/2012 on 03/11/2014
Complaint No. 119/SIC/2012 Decided on: 28/10/2014
Complaint No:123/SIC/2012 Decided on:28/07/2014
ComplaintNo.125/SCIC/2012 Decided on 19/11/2014
Comp 131/SIC/2012 on:19/06/2014
Complaint No. 134/SCIC/2012 Decided on :19/11/2014
Compl 143/SIC/2012 on 06.02.2014
Complaint No: 148/SIC/2012 Decided on :13/02/2014
Comp 153/SCIC/2012 on: 22/04/2014
Comp 160/SIC/2012 on: 06/02/2014
Penalty
Penalty 02/2012 in Appeal 63/SIC/2011-F- on 09/01/2015
Penalty 03+04+05/2012-W- on 19/08/2014
Penalty 15/2012 on: 28/05/2014
Incoplete PenaltyNo.16/2012 in Complaint .80/SIC/2011 on. 20/05/2014
Pen No. 29/2012 In Appeal 10/SIC/2012 on 20/10/2014
Penalty 33/2012 on 21/05/2014
Penalty No. 40/2012 on 30/01/2014
YEAR 2013
Appeal
Appeal 01/SIC/2013-W-05/03/2014
Appeal 03/SCIC/2013 on 27/10/2014
Appeal 13/SIC/2013 on 26.11.2013 or should it be 13/SIC/2012 as per filing date ?Appeal 19/SCIC/2013 on 06/01/2014
Appeal 23/SIC/2013 on 11.11.2013
Appeal 72/SIC/2013 on: 20/11/2013
Appeal 88/SIC/2013 on: 04/03/2014
Appeal.121/SIC/2013 on 11/04/2014
ComplaintComplaint No. 13/SIC/2013 Decided on 07/07/2014
Complaint 14/SCIC/2013 on 4/08/2014
Comp 21+22/SIC/2013 on: 16/12/2014
Complaint 23/SIC/2013 on: 03/06/2014
Comp. 64/SIC/2013 decided on 4.11.2013
Complaint 73-75-77/SCIC/2013
Appeal
Appeal 10/SCIC/2014 on: 10/11/2014
Appeal 37/SCIC/2014
Appeal 72/SCIC/2014 on 12/11//2014Appeal 73/SCIC/2014 on 06/01/2015
Appeal 83/SCIC/2014 on 15/01/2015
Appeal 102/SCIC/2014 on 17/11/2014
Appeal 109/SCIC/2014-W-on 12/11//2014
Complaint
ComplaintNo. 1/SCIC/2014
ComplaintNo.02/SCIC/2014 Decided on 25/11/2014
Compl 7/SIC/2014 on 5/11/2014- शांग्रीला सोसायटी
Comp 12/SCIC/2014 on 12/11/2014
Comp 13/SCIC/2014+Comp 146/SCIC/2013 on: 08/10/2014Complaint No. 15/SCIC/2014 Decided on: 18/11/2014
Complaint 16/SCIC/2014-P-on: 28/10/2014
Penalty
Penalty 09/2014 in Appeal 184/SCIC/2012 Interim Order on 26/08/2014
Penalty No. 12/2014 in Appeal 103/SCIC/2013 on 19/11/2014
Penalty 14/2014 & 15/2014 on 10/10/2014 --Table tennis Association
Penalty 20/2014 In Complaint No. 85/SCIC/2012
Penalty 23/2014 In Appeal 108/SIC/2012 on 14/08/2014
Penalty No. 34/2014
Penalty No. 39/2014 in Complaint No. 134/SCIC/2012 19-11-2014
INTERIM ORDERS
Appeal 148/SIC/2011 Interim Order 28 /11/2014
Comp 162/SCIC/2012
App 114/SCIC/2013
APP 79/SCIC/2013
ROJNAMA
App 175/SIC/2012
APP 79/SCIC/2013
APP 64/SCIC/2013
App 30/SIC/201
App 168/SCIC/2013
App 63/SIC/2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)