Compl 101/SIC/2009 on 05/08/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

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

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner .

Complaint No. 101/SIC/2009

Decided on: 05/08/2014

Miss Pramila B. Talkar,

H.No. 263, Malpem,

Pernem, Goa. ----- Complainant

V/s

1. Village Panchayat Secretary Virnoda/Public Information Officer

Village Panchayat of Virnoda,

Pernem, Goa.

2. Assistant Engineer- III/Public Information Officer

O/o. Sub Division III, Works Division I,

Water Resources Department,

Pernem, Goa. ----- Opponents

O R D E R

This Complaint arises out of RTI application filed on 23/01/2009 before the PIO Village Panchayat Virnorda, Pernem, Goa. The appellant claims that she is the affected person of shortage of Natural water supply from the lake that has been repaired before 4 years and yet the work is not completed.

Hence the information was asked for

1. Why is the said construction left incomplete?

2. At present what is the standing position of the said construction, is it taken up as per plans sanctioned?

The PIO transferred the application under 6(3) on 26/05/2009 (after more than 3 months) to the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources P.W.D Pernem - Goa. Subsequently an order was passed by the then SIC on 15/01/2010 in which it was observed that even though the RTI application was transferred to the deemed PIO, the Complainant did not implead the deemed PIO namely Assistant Engineer, Water Resources P.W.D Pernem – Goa. The SIC however ordered that a notice be issued to the deemed PIO and he should be heard on 28/06/2010. The deemed PIO Respondent No. 2 filed his reply before the SIC in which he submitted the progress of the work at I (1) to (4) and III (a) to (e). He also claimed that he has

…2/-

--2--

received the transferred RTI application late from the Village Panchayat on 09/06/2009.

It is however evident that even if he had received the transferred RTI application at a much delayed date he himself has not taken care to give any reply to the Appellant.

As far as the actual RTI application is concerned it is a little flawed though the chagrin and anger of the common citizen is understandable when a small government scheme does not get completed even after 4 years, resulting in continued water shortage, However, the Q1 does not fit in the definition of information although it pertains to inefficiency. It does not come under the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The 2^nd question begins by asking what is the standing position of work. This definitely falls under definition of information and PIO should have answered it.

The deemed PIO has no doubt filed the status of work before the Commission on 28/06/2010. He has not mentioned whether proper water supply has started yet to the villagers as was the purpose of the scheme for desilting of Tank and construction of side walls.

The Complainant remained present on earlier dates but started absenting after January 2013 and continued to remain absent till 05/08/2014 which was the last date of hearing. An operative order for dismissal was recorded in the Rojnama. However after the closure of the hearing the complaint as well as the present Village Panchayat Officer appeared before me and I find that nothing more remains to be supplied as far as the information asked is concerned.

Complainant has prayed for penalty for the then Village Panchayat Officer of Virnoda. The grounds stated at para 6 is that the information sought from the secretary of Village Panchayat was simple information and it was easily available in the records of the Panchayat, but the secretary intentionally refused to give information within 30 days, hence, the Complainant had to suffer mentally and monetarily. This aspect is not fully correct. The mistake of the Village Panchayat Officer lies in not transferring the application to the concerned Assistant Engineer

…3/-

--3--

who was executing the work. The Assistant Engineer and deemed PIO has also not discharged his duty under RTI Act. However non-reply by both of them is not the cause of continued water shortage.

Anyway, before issuing any penalty order, both PIO’s must be given a chance to explain their position.

Hence I feel that there is need to issue direction to present BDO of Pernem that he may issue advisory note to all the Village Panchayat Officers working under him to be more vigilant in replying to the RTI questions within 30 days and when the information is not available with them, they should transfer it under Section 6(3) within 6 days to the concerned dealing officers.

Now, no further information remains to be received. In view of the prayer of the complainant a notice can be issued to both PIO’s under section 20(1) they can be given a chance. Hence I direct Registry to start new penalty case and issue notices to both the then Village Panchayat officer for not transferring the RTI application in time and the then Assistant Engineer for not replying.

With this direction this Complaint is closed. Order declared in Open Court. Inform the parties. Open Separate Penalty case and issue notices to then PIO and deemed PIO.

Sd/-

( Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.