Complaint No. 15/SIC/2013 INTERIM ORDER Decided on 30/05/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 15/SIC/2013

INTERIM ORDER

Decided on 30/05/2014

Shri Ashok Desai,

309, 3^rd Floor,

Damodar Phase – II ----- Complainant

Near Police Station,

Margao – Goa.

V/s

The Public Information Officer, ------ Opponent

Shri Prakash Bandodkar,

Town & Country Planning Dept;

Taluka Office Canacona – Goa.

INTERIM ORDER

This Complaint is filed on 12/02/2013 and it arises out of original RTI application No. 1 dated 07/12/2012.

The RTI application has the following opening para.

“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 near Katyayani Baneshwar High School, in survey standing in the name of Kusta Pandu Dessai”.

The PIO has replied on 08/01/2013 rejecting the application due to non availability of the information in this office. The complaint has been made directly to the SCIC mainly on 2 grounds. Firstly, there is a delay of two days in dispatching of the reply and a delay of five days for actually receiving the reply by the complainant. Secondly the PIO in his reply stated that he is

relying on Section 8 even though Sec 8 is meant for claiming exemption.

--2--

--2--

The reply reads as below:

“Your request for information has been rejected u/s 7(1) of the Act and I am to inform you the following u/s (8):

The information sought by you is rejected due to non availability of the information in this office.”

According to the complainant the plea of non availability is also not permitted to the PIO unless there has been theft, destruction, damage etc.

Both parties has remained continuously absent from 19/09/2013 onwards, hence case is examined on merit, based on available records.

I have perused the original RTI question and the reply. The PIO though claiming benefit of Sec 8, nevertheless mentions about non-availability of record. He however did not explain the reason for non-availability. He should have been more elaborate in the first instance. After the complaint was filed, the PIO has once again submitted on 26/04/2013 that since their office has not received any application for construction of masonry structure in survey No. 267/33 of Kusta Pandu Dessai, therefore in his reply he has stated the reason of non- availability of the record. Thus I find that through this reply now the PIO seeks to clarify meaning of “non-availability” as used by him.I feel this reply can be accepted, but with a word of caution to the PIO that in future he should be more careful and to the point about his choice of words.

Hence the complainant is called upon to give any further say if at all. In case of no further communication is received from him till 30/08/2014 the complaint shall be closed. Registry to send a notice to both the parties to that effect.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Panaji – Goa.