Compliant18, 61,62/SIC/2010 Decided on 04/08/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

CORAM : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Compliant No. 18/SIC/2010

Compliant No. 61/SIC/2010

Compliant No. 62/SIC/2010

Decided on 04/08/2014

Shri. Shriram S. P. Raiturkar,

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

Opp. State Bank of Mysore,

Margao - Goa ………. Appellant

V/s

The Public Information Officer,

Deputy Director of Administration,

P.W.D., Altinho,

Head Office, Panaji,

Goa. …….. Opponent

O R D E R

Complaint No. 18/SIC/2010

RTI application filed on : 28/12/2009

Transfer under Rule 6(3) : 13/01/2010

First Appeal filed on : Not filed

Complaint filed on :25/01/2010

Complaint No. 61/SIC/2010

RTI application filed on : 31/12/2009

PIO Reply : Not filed alongwith 2^nd appeal memo

First Appeal filed on : Not filed

Complaint filed on : 15/02/2010

Complaint No. 62/SIC/2010

RTI application filed on : 29/12/2009

PIO Reply : Not filed

First Appeal filed on : Not filed

Complaint filed on : 15/02/2010

1). The above three complaint applications have the same issue and between same parties, hence they are disposed off together. The matrix of case No. 18/SIC/2010 is discussed hereunder which is representative of all the three complaints.

2/-

-2-

2). The original R.T.I application was filed on 28/12/2009 to the PIO of PWD and Dy. Director (Administration), Altinho, Headquarters asking for inspection of files. The PIO has internally transferred it to Jt. Director of Accounts on 31/12/2009. The RTI question pertains to certain tender notices and the Complainant had asked for granting inspection of original files. Hence, Jt. Director of Accounts transferred the application on 13/01/2010 to the Executive Engineer, Works Division – XXV at Fatorda, Margao, Goa, stating that one copy of the respective estimate files are always retained by their office for record. A copy of this letter was marked to the complainant, “with a request to approach to the Executive Engineer, W.D.XXV, PWD; Fatorda Margao- Goa.

3) It appears logical that once the complainant received intimation of transfer of application u/s 6(3) to the Executive Engineer at Fatorda with a request that complaint should approach that office, he should have made some efforts to contact the said PIO in order to facilitate the inspection. However, he has directly filed his complaint application on 28/01/2010 to SCIC without even approaching in the First Appellate Authority. From the roznama as recorded by the then SCIC from time to time, it is seen that the complaint attended the hearing on some days upto 11/8/2010 but stopped attending thereafter. It is pertinent to note that the posts of SCIC fell vacant in mid 2012. However, the complainant had been absenting himself much prior to that.

4) In view of the above, it is considered just and proper to proceed even in his absence.The complainant is absent even today after the regular hearing have resumed long since (w.e.f November 2013). I have gone through all records and files including the complaint application and additional submission filed by the complainant. Main ground of ccomplaint as seen in Para 1 & 2 of complaint memo before SCIC is that while the Executive Engineer – P.W.D retains only a copy, the original tender file is retained with the Head Office, and since he has asked inspection of the original, the transfer of RTI application u/s 6(3) by the Jt. Director of Accounts to the Executive Engineer is not correct.

5) Two Officers Smt. Madhura Naik as well as Shri. Anthony Mathew of Divison – XX who are present before me in another case, have both submitted orally that as a routine, orginial files are kept in the custody of concerned Executive Engineer who is operating at the field and not at the Headquarters.

3/-

-3-

6) I find another corroboration of the above. The complainant submits at Para 4 that through a separate RTI application he had also requested the same information from PIO, P.W.D, Division – XXV, Fatorda, Margao but the information submitted by the PIO was about different site plans. Though he has not persued that matter, this reference shows that he is aware that he can approach the PWD at divisional level too, for inspection of files. In the present complaints too, he could have at least inspected the files and then raised his objection if the files shown to him were not original files. It is to be noted that the purpose of RTI Act is not to allocate zero responsibility to the seeker of information, but he should also show some diligence and certain amount of cooperative attitude.

7) In view of the above oral submission as well as the fact that the complainant has not persuaded the matter after 2010, I consider it fit to dismiss the present complaint. A liberty is however given to the complainant that if he is still in need of the information, as requested in his 3 RTI applications which have resulted in the present 3 complaints, then he should approach the Executive Engineer, P.W.D, Division – XXV at Fatorda within 2 months of receiving this order, upon which the present Executive Engineer shall grant him inspection of original files within a month, of his approach. This much time is given to PIO as the matter has now become old. Complainant is free to ask for inspection of both the copies that have to be supplied by the tenderer, if he is suspecting any foul play and mismatch of documents by the tenderer.

With the above directions that the complaints are dismissed. Order declared in open court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji - Goa