Complaint No. 95/SCIC/2013 Decided on:09/10/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Complaint No. 95/SCIC/2013

Decided on:09/10/2014

Ashok Desai,

309, 3^rd Floor, Damodar Phase- II,

Near Police Station,

Margao- Goa. ---Complainant

V/s

Mr. Ravishekhar Nipanikar,

Public Information Officer,

Mamlatdar of Canacona,

At Chaudi, Canacona- Goa. --- Opponent

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 19/06/2013

PIO reply dated : 08/07/2013

First Appeal filed on : Not filed

FAA Order dated : Not applicable

Complaint filed on : 15/01/2013

1) This complaint arises out of original RTI application dated 19/06/2013 filed before the PIO/Mamlatdar of Canacona, which inter-alia refers to application dated 29/05/2013 by Shri Ajit Laxman Desai,( not the present Complainant) and asks the first question as below-

a) Inform whether the Interested party concerned to DEED OF SALE dated 14.02.2013 has filed application for mutation proceedings.

2) The brief background is that one Shri. Ajit Laxman Desai (not the present complaint) filed an application to the Mamlatdar of Canacona to object to the mutation proceedings related to the landed property that forms a part of Survey No. 277/6 (Digamarad) in Village Nagarcem Palolem. He has not even confirmed that there is a mutation case actually filed. It is only claimed that a Deed of Sale was executed on 14/02/2013 and registered in the office of Sub- Registrar of Canacona under No. 55 at pages 144 to 161 of Book No. I, Volume No. 262 dated 20/02/2013. The application also objects to another alleged mutation proceedings in another land which is a part of Survey No. 277/7 in relation to which a Sale

Contd---2/-

--2--

Deed was executed on 10/09/2012 and registered in the office of Sub- Registrar of Canacona under No. 313 at pages 594 to 622 of Book No. I Volume No. 254 dated 12/09/2012.

3) The RTI application sought information about the mutation proceedings with respect to both these Sale Deeds. A reply was sent to the RTI applicant, (who is not Shri. Ajit Laxman Desai, the intervener). It was sent on 08/07/2013 and thus in time, It states,

“Sir, With reference to your above referred application, I am to inform you that the details are kept ready and you may verify the same by visiting our office on any of the working day.”

4) Aggrieved by this reply, the present complaint has been filed claiming that the said letter amounts, to non supply of information and hence the prayer of clause A,B and C may be allowed. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed on 15/07/2013 directly to the SCIC without approaching the FAA. The complainant has also not given an explanation as to why he has not been able to approach the FAA. However since the post of SCIC and SIC were both vacant, the office of the SCIC has accepted the complaint and given it registration number as above and posted it for hearing

5) It came up for proper hearing before SCIC for first time on 10/12/2013 and the complainant has remained absent continuously. PIO has filed reply on 10/12/2013 and also made oral submission.

6) The PIO replies that he has sent an intimation within time and also kept the file ready for inspection. The RTI Act also puts some responsibility on the RTI applicant. The Complainant could have atleast replied that he does not want any inspection. It is therefore wrong on behalf of Complainant to alleged that “ PIO has whimsically, fancifully and arbitrarily denied the information.”

7) The Complainant wanted specific information to his Question No. 1 to 5. At the level of PIO, there can be sometimes a doubt as to whether the information as available is same as the information requested. The wording of question No. 1 is

Contd---3/-

--3--

unclear it is not understood who is the interested party concerned to the Deed of Sale. The PIO has also objected that by not filing the first appeal the opportunity of the PIO to explain his case before FAA has been taken away.

8) The PIO has also elaborated a small background. As is mentioned in para 2 supra. He has further argued that any mutation proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar of Canacona would be a quasi- Judicial proceeding under the Revenue Code and would take its own course. The said Ajit Laxman Desai can agitate as an intervener before the Mamlatdar. But he has to first confirm and state on oath that a mutation proceeding actually going on. The application stated to be from Ajit Laxman Desai filed alongwith the complaint memo does not even confirm or verify that any mutation proceeding is actually going on before the Mamlatdar.

9) In view of the above the PIO prays that complaint may be dismissed.

10) I have gone through the record and I agree with the arguments of the PIO. There is no clarity about any mutation proceedings alleged to be going on before the Mamlatdar of Canacona and there is no clarity about who is the person mention is question 1 of RTI application. The Complainant has not given any reasons for not approaching the FAA in first appeal and has not attended the hearings. The Complainant is therefore fit to be dismissed as lacking merit.

--- O R D E R ---

The Complaint is dismissed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.