GOA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON
“Shrama
Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM:
Smt.
Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint No.577/SCIC/2010
Decided on: 30/04/2014
Shri.
James Thomas Godwin,
R/o.
flat no. 16, 3rd
floor,
Union
House No.2, Mogal lane,
Off
L.J.Road , Mahim,
Mumbai,
Maharashtra. ……….. Complainant.
V/s.
The
Chief Officer/Public Information Officer,
District
& Session Court,
North
Goa, Panaji, Goa. ……………Opponent.
O R D E R (Open Court)
|
RTI
application dated
|
:12/10/2010
|
|
|
PIO
reply dated
|
:16/10/2010
|
|
|
First
Appeal dated
|
:Nil
|
|
|
FAA
Order dated
|
:Nil
|
|
|
Complaint
filed on
|
:01/11/2010
|
|
This
Complaint arises out of RTI Application to PIO cum Chief
Administrative Officer Panaji, District Court. The complaint sought
information regarding Civil Suit 1/2002/F in the Court of the Hon
Civil judge Senior Division at Mapusa, Goa, the disposal of the said
court case and regarding the working and administrative system of
District and Civil Court. Question A to Q pertain to the case
mentioned above.
A
reply was given on 16/10/2010 asking to pay the fees of Rs.95/-. It
was also pointed out that the all District Courts in Goa fall under
the Jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay who have framed the rules
published in
“the Official Gazette, Government of Goa, Series I No. 25, dated
17th
September ,2009, which specifies that the information /Copy/ies
inspection with respect to cases pending in Court, which shall be
obtained from the Court, as per the Rules and Orders in force for the
time being.”
The fees charged for additional information is as per the rates given
under these rules.
2/-
-2-
A
reply was filed by the Respondent on 18/01/2011. It is mentioned
therein that information regarding several question were not
furnished by PIO, on the ground that it did not fall under section
2(f). Some information was not provided in view of rule 13(b) and
13(f) and 10(3) of the rules framed by the High Court. It is
important to note that as per rule 13(b). Some information requested
was vague and asking for opinion , some information for example to
question (X) was kept ready but the payment was not made by the
complainant despite the letter dated 16/10/2010. Some information was
received by him on 01/11/2010. Elaborate replies were given in
respect to question regarding pendency of Civil and Criminal cases,
Staff name and designation etc. In total more than 50 question were
asked and the status of the information given has been elaborately
explained in the reply of the PIO in para 6.
No
First Appeal was filed but a complaint was filed with this Commission
on 01/11/2010. It is seen from the roznama dated 25/04/2011 that the
Opponent has filed the reply and complainant has received a copy. The
Complainant has not filed any rejoinder .
The
Complainant remained continuously absent from 16/08/2011on 9
occasions till the then SCIC was functioning in this office.
He
also remained absent on all subsequently dates till today. Hence it
is presumed that he has no interest in perusing the matter.
The
complaint lacks merits as above hence it is dismissed. Order declared
in Open Court. Inform the Parties.
Sd/-
(Leena
Mehendale)
Goa
State Chief Information Commissioner
Goa
State Information Commission
Panaji-Goa
No comments:
Post a Comment