Jt Financial Commissioner order termed erroneous, absurd
*Show-cause notices for delayed replies, procedural lapses
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, May 18: In a sharp rebuke to Public Authorities in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir over casual handling of RTI matters, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued show-cause notices to officials of the Revenue Department and DC Office Kupwara, flagging delayed replies, missing records, non-appearance during hearings and deemed refusal of information.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The Commission also strongly criticised the First Appellate Authority (FAA), observing that the order passed by it was grossly erroneous and absurd and had effectively rendered the statutory remedy of First Appeal futile.
The first case arose from an RTI application filed by one Rahul Singh seeking details regarding sanctioned strength, vacant posts and recruitment status of Naib Tehsildars in the Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department. The applicant had also sought a certified copy of an earlier RTI reply allegedly stating that 86 posts of Naib Tehsildars were vacant, including 35 in Jammu region.
As no reply was furnished within the stipulated time, the applicant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Joint Financial Commissioner (Revenue). During the hearing before the FAA, the Public Information Officer reportedly stated that the available information would be provided to the applicant.
However, instead of deciding the appeal in accordance with the RTI Act, the FAA directed the PIO to hear the applicant and go through the RTI application.
Taking serious note of this, Chief Information Commissioner observed, “the FAA had treated the RTI application as a grievance petition rather than a statutory information request under the RTI Act”. The CIC observed that there was no material on record to show that the RTI application had been replied to within the statutory time frame and held that it amounted to “deemed refusal” under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that the information was eventually supplied only after notice of registration of the Second Appeal was issued by the Commission. The order further recorded that the CPIO neither explained the delay nor responded properly to the Commission’s hearing notice. Even during the hearing, the representative of the CPIO merely referred to documents placed on record without offering any substantial explanation.
Directing the CPIO to submit a written response within three weeks, the CIC asked why proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated for failure to provide timely information. In a sharp observation against the FAA, the Commission cautioned the authority against issuing inconclusive orders which negate the purpose of designating a First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act.
The CIC also directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the FAA to ensure that First Appeals are decided strictly in accordance with the mandate of the RTI Act in future.
In another case, the CIC has issued a show-cause notice to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, over serious lapses in handling an RTI application related to land transactions and valuation details.
Coming down heavily on the functioning of the office, the Commission observed that neither any information was placed on record nor did any official appear during the hearing despite prior notice.
The complaint arose from an RTI application filed by Nitin Sharma seeking details regarding sale of land, names of buyers and sellers, prices of land transactions and land valuation trends in a specified village area.
However, no response was furnished to the applicant, prompting him to approach the Central Information Commission with a complaint.
During proceedings, the Commission noted that the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, had merely stated in a written submission that the RTI application was transferred to the PIO, Tehsildar Kupwara, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act as the information was not available in the DC office.
The Commission, however, found major deficiencies in the handling of the matter and recorded that there was nothing on record to establish that the information sought by the complainant had actually been provided.
The Chief Information Commissioner observed that the CPIO failed to ensure attendance of the concerned Tehsildar during the hearing, failed to place any proof regarding supply of information to the complainant and also failed to attend the hearing without any justifiable reason.
Taking serious note of these lapses, the CIC directed issuance of a show-cause notice to the CPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office, asking him to explain why penalty proceedings should not be initiated for violation of provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission directed the officer to submit a cogent explanation, warning that failure to respond would result in the matter being decided on the basis of existing records.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
