Appeal No.67/SIC/2013 Decided on 06/01/2015

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No.67/SIC/2013

Decided on 06/01/2015

Shri. Johny Santan D’Souza,

R/o. H.No. 48, Girkar Vaddo,

Dando Arambol,

Pernem, Goa. …….Appellant

V/s.

1.The Deputy Director of Tourism(P)

& Public Information Officer,

Department of Tourism,

Panaji,Goa.

2. The Director,

Department of Tourism,

Panaji, Goa. ……Respondents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application dated : 24/02/2013

PIO reply on : 11/03/2013

First Appeal filed on : 28/03/2013

FAA Order dated : 25/04/2013

Second Appeal filed on : 31/05/2013

1) This case has a limited point for decision. The Appellant asked questions regarding years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in respect of NOC given in temporary huts of Smt. J. Rodrigues, in Survey No. 63/2 of Village Arambol. Such temporary huts by the concerned entrepreneur during the tourist season of 6 months are necessarily to be removed so that during the off-tourist season they do not continue to jeopardise the environment and eco-system. Their permissions are granted by department and officers of Tourism Department whose policy in that regard is drafted, changed and updated from time to time.

2) The appellant asked 3 questions. The question 1 asked about file notings for the years when the security deposited has been forfeited. Question No.3 asked about file noting for years when security deposits was not been forfeited. Question No. 2 asked about copy of all permissions from various Departments such as Fire

--2--

--2--

Department, Village Panchayat, Food and Drugs Administration etc., which the NOC holder is supposed to procure before starting his seasonal business of tourism huts.

3) The PIO replied on 11/03/2013 (within time) and supplied information giving file noting for 2012 and 2013, when deposit was forfeited. He also gave information on question No. 3 which are common orders, stating that the security deposits for the listed persons can be released.

4) As far as question No. 2 is concerned, present PIO states that as per policy of the Department of Tourism and guidelines existing before their latest policy for the year 2013-16, there was no policy for taking those documents on the file of the Tourism department, either before or after granting NOC. Only the concerned hut owner was required to keep those licenses with himself. In the new policy 2013-16 such permission of other Departments will be required to be submitted to the Department of Tourism. Only then the temporary hut owner can register under Tourism and carry out business. The PIO thus argues that the reply filed by the then PIO was not false or incomplete.

5) The appellant approached FAA who has passed a brief order

Heard the PIO/and appellant. The appellant may be provided inspection of relevant files within ten days and information sought by him may be provided.

It is clear from the order that he has not gone into the merits of the then PIO’s reply but simply ordered for giving information which the then PIO has ignored. Neither the then PIO nor the FAA discussed and explained to the appellant what the present PIO is trying to explain. Hence I am constrained to keep my displeasure about the quality of FAA’s order on record.

6) The appellant has now accepted the situation as stated by present PIO. He is also agitating as to why, despite forfeiting security deposit for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the concerned seasonal hut-owner was not debarred for her seasonal Tourist business in the year 2013-14 and why huts erected for the purpose of seasonal and temporary business have not been demolished when the tourism season was over.

Contd----3/-

--3--

7) These two questions are important but cannot be raised in the forum of RTI Act.

8)The appellant also argues for penalty to the then PIO. To decide this issue it is necessary to give a hearing to Shri. H.K.Parsekar (retried) the then PIO. A notice to be issued to him u/s 20 (1) by giving a new penalty case number. He should be allowed to explain his stand in the whole issue.

--- O R D E R---

The second appeal is partly allowed. No information now remains to be supplied. The case u/s 20 (1) will be taken up with separate case number. Order declared in Open Court. Inform parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.