Compliant No: 152/SCIC/2013 Decided on 10/10/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Compliant No: 152/SCIC/2013

Decided on 10/10/2014

Mrs. Maria P. Fernandes e Rodrigues,

H.No. 1392/Flat No. 6, First floor,

Morning Sunrise Apartment,

Mazilwado, Benaulim, Salcete. ---- Complainant

V/s

Miss Triveni Velip,

The Public Information Officer,

The Mamlatdar of Salcete,

At New Collectorate Building,

At Margao Goa. ---- Opponent

O R D E R

RTI application filed on : 14/10/2013

PIO replied : 08/11/2013

Complaint filed on : 28/11/2013

1) This Complaint is filed on 28/11/2013. and it arises out of original RTI application dated 14/10/2013 made to the PIO Mamlatdar of Salcete, Collectorate Building, Margao- Goa.

2) Since the PIO and Mamlatdar raised a preliminary point against the complaint, it appeared to be justified to take up the matter even in the absence of Complainant.

3) Notice was issued fixing a date of hearing on 10/10/2014. The Complainant remained absent. The present Mamlatdar of Salcete remained present and orally pointed out to one anomaly in para 4 of the Complaint memo. The said para reads as below:

“That the postal envelop enclosed herewith would show that the letter of the Opponent PIO dated 8.11.2013 was dispatched from Margao post office on the 30^th day i.e. 30.11.2013 and reached in Benaulim post office on 16.11.2013 and delivered to me under my signature only on 19.11.2013”.

2/-

-2-

4) However, from page 9 filed along with the complaint memo, the postal receipt has the stamp showing the date of dispatch of Margao Post office as 13/11/2013. Thus the reference to the date of 30/11/2013 in para 4 is a misleading information. Para 4 itself acknowledges a little ahead that the letter from PIO is delivered to the Complainant on 19/11/2013. Therefore it should not be held that the letter from PIO was not dispatched on 30/11/2013, but on 13/11/2013.

5) Further at para 9 the Complainant herself states that the PIO letter was dispatched on the 30^th day and was received after the expiry of 30 days. It is her argument that PIO must be held as liable for penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day, and the delay be calculated with reference to the date when she actually received the letter from PIO.

6) However the preliminary point raised by PIO is that 30 days period is the time allowed for PIO to send reply and since he has dispatched the reply on 30^th day, hence his action was in time and the complaint be dismissed.

7) It is further prayed by complainant that information be provided free of cost. I have read the complaint memo and no reason has been given for this prayer. The PIO has rightly pointed out that since his reply is within time the applicant is not entitled to information, free of cost.

8) It has been held in several other judgments in past that the period of 30 days prescribed for replying to the RTI questions is a period given to the PIO. If the PIO is not giving information upto that date because he is required to notify the payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing information as specified section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, then, as far as possible the PIO should send such a letter early; however there can be no hard and fast rule as to how early the letter should be dispatched. Once the letter is dispatched the responsibility of the PIO seizes for such time as the payment is made. Thereafter the time gap between the date of payment and the date of actual delivery of information will be counted towards the total time available with the PIO under section (7) to furnish the reply.

3/-

-3-

9) In the instant case the Complainant has failed to point out as to when the payment of Rs. 66/- was made and when the information was collected and whether there was any gap between the dates. The Mamlatdar of Salcete who was

present before me has filed Xerox copy of the chalan of payment of Rs. 66/- made by the Complainant on 06/12/2013 and the endorsement of the Complainant stating that she has received the information on 06/12/2013.Thus there is no gap of any single day between the payment of “Further Fees” and delivery of information. In view of this complaint is dismissed as lacking any merit. Information has been provided and nothing more remains to the matter.

Order declared in Open Court. Inform parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Panaji – Goa.