Complaint No. 117/SIC/2010 Decided on 27/06/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

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

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 117/SIC/2010

Decided on 27/06/2014

Shri Shriram S.P. Raiturkar

C/o. Adv. S.P. Raiturkar,

Opp. State Bank of Mysore,

Pajifond, Margao, Goa …….. Complainant

V/s

The Public Information Officer/

Executive Engineer, Div. XXV (R),

PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa ……. Opponent

O R D E R ( ORAL)

RTI application dated : -29/12/2009

PIO reply on : -NIL

First Appeal filed on : -NIL

FAA Order dated : -NIL

Complaint filed on : -19/02/2010

This Complaint arises from RTI applications dated 29/12/2009 to the PIO, Executive Engineer, PWD, Works Division. XXV( Roads), Margao-Goa.

The Complaint requested to grant inspection of files in respect of work order issued regarding five work tenders.

Thereafter the present Complaint was filed directly on 19/02/2010 claiming that the PIO did not provide the inspection, actually he did not respond at all. Hence the Complainant be given information free of cost, and a fine to be imposed on the PIO.

Notices were issued and the complaint came up for hearing before then SIC A reply has filed by then PIO on 23/04/2010. This was taken on record and complainant has received a copy. The then PIO, has stated the reasons of exigencies, priority work and census etc but prayed that the Complainant may directed to verify the information of requisite files on 15/06/2010.

Contd---2/-

--2—

It is however the claim of the complainant that he once again visited the office of the PIO on 15/06/2010 and was not given any inspection. Hence the complainant filed written argument on 15/06/2010, before the SIC. It is intriguing to note that the Complainant claims to have visited the office of the PIO on 15/06/2011 at Margao and also filed he say before SIC on 15/06/2010 itself.

Thereafter the Complainant remained continuously absent till date. He has not perused the matter before the then SCIC who was holding office till end of July 2012. Thereafter too, he has not attended till date.

The Respondent has been sending his representative occasionally, thus when the matter is taken up by me there is a reason to believe that the complaint is no longer interested in this old information. Hence the complaint can be dismissed and closed.

However, I need to comment that the PIO should be more careful in future to reply RTI queries in time.

---O R D E R—

As discussed above the matter is dismissed for non persuasions.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji-Goa