TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, , 600 018. Tel: 24357580

DATE OF ORDER – 22.07.2014

PRESENT

Thiru S.F. AKBAR, B.Sc., B.L., STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Case No. 55618/Enquiry/A/2012 (23621/A/2013)

Thiru M.Javeed Ameen Ali, No.17/1, 9 th Lane, .. APPELLANT Sasthri Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020.

The Public Information Officer/ .. PUBLIC AUTHORITY P.A.To Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O.Office, Tambaram, Chennai-45.

The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District.

---- ORDER

The appellant Thiru M.Javeed Ameen Ali is present. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru C.Jayakumar, P.A. To R.D.O., Tambaram and Thiru V.Senthil,

Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Office, Sholinganallur. 2

2. A perusal of the petition dated 07.10.2011 filed under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act would reveal that the appellant is asking for certain information in three items in regard to a property comprised in Old Survey No.12/1, New Survey

No.12/322 Sholinganallur-II, Kancheepuram District. A letter had been written by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur on 10.06.2013 i.e. two years after filing of the RTI Petition calling upon him to furnish the information. It could be gathered from the said letter that by then the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act has been preferred to this Commission and the said appeal was pending. Presumably the filing of Second Appeal has served as an eye opener and the R.D.O. has addressed the said letter to the Tahsildar marking a copy to the appellant. By yet another letter on the same day i.e. 10.06.2013, the

R.D.O. has written to the appellant also saying that acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question has been initiated and in as much as the acquisition proceedings remained incomplete, no further steps have been taken.

3.It has also been stated that since the property has not then been subject to acquisition proceedings, no orders have been passed in regard to the compensation payable for any acquisition. He has called upon the appellant to approach the Special

Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), for further action. Thus, obviously there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about two years when the said information was furnished to the appellant. The PIO has written to the Special Deputy Collector

(Land Acquisition), IT Corridor Express Highway, Tambaram requesting him to provide a report in respect of the land in question and the latter has sent a letter dated 16.07.2014 in response thereto. It has been stated in the letter 3 dated 16.07.2014 emanating from the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) that the acquisition proceedings would be taken up only after obtaining administrative sanction and in as much as the acquisition exercise is in the preparatory stage, no intimation has so far been sent to the owners of the land.

What could be gathered in the course of the enquiry is that acquisition proceedings are yet to be commenced, that it would be commenced only after obtaining administrative sanction which is awaited from the Government and the moment such sanction is obtained, the authorities will undertake acquisition proceedings following the procedure contemplated by law. Be it as it may.

4. The appellant brings to the notice of this Commission in the course of the enquiry that even though no acquisition proceedings are pending still, underground pipelines have been laid in his property without his knowledge or consent. The appellant also tells this Commission that in the property in question, he has found to his great dismay, two stones of Road Development

Corporation embedded in the land. The PIO states that he does not have any idea about the pipeline as also which department laid the pipeline and he undertakes to ascertain from the officials as to what exactly that has transpired in this case. The PIO who is the P.A. To Revenue Divisional

Officer, Tambaram, shall come back to this Commission after two weeks with relevant information.

5. This Commission after examining the materials on record would only come to a conclusion that the PIO has omitted to perform his duty promptly realizing the responsibilities cast on him by law. His approach could only be labeled as 4 abdication of his statutory responsibility of furnishing information. This Commission is impelled in the facts and circumstances of the case to call upon the PIO to explain as to why the penal provisions of the RTI Act viz. 20(1) and

20(2) should not be invoked against him. As such, the Public Information

Officer who is the P.A. to R.D.O., Tambaram is called upon to explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- should not be imposed on him for his casual attitude resulting in failure in complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. He is also called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act for his continued lapses stated supra.

6. The case stands adjourned to…………………….. at 11.00 A.M.

The Public Information Officer who is the P.A. to R.D.O., Tambaram and the appellant. shall come ready to attend the enquiry with all the relevant records on that day without fail.

Sd/- (S.F.AKBAR) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

(BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Case No. 55618/Enquiry/A/2012 (23621/A/2013)

To

PUBLIC AUTHORITY : 5

The Public Information Officer/ P.A.To Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram R.D.O.Office, Tambaram, Chennai-45.

The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District.

APPELLANT:

Thiru M.Javeed Ameen Ali, No.17/1, 9 th Lane, Sasthri Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020.

*jb*