Telangana State Information Commission

TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (Under Right to Information Act, 2005) Samachara Hakku Bhavan, D.No.5-4-399, ‘4’ Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad – 500 001. Phone Nos: 040-24740107 (o); 040-24740592(f) Appeal No.9026/CIC-(peshi-2)/2018 Dated:21-10-2019 Appellant : Sri Mathangi Yesu Babu, Suryapet District-508213. Respondent : The Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act,2005) / O/o The Tahsildar, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District-507160. The First Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Division, Khammam District-507001. O R D E R Sri Mathangi Yesu Babu, R/o Suryapet District filed 2nd appeal dated 06-05-2018 which was received by this Commission on 12-06-2018 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO / O/o The Tahsildar, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District-507160 and 1st Appellate Authority / O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Division, Khammam District-507001. The brief facts of the case as per the appeal and other records received along with it are that the appellant herein filed an application dated 07-03-2018 under Sec.6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the PIOTSIC seeking the following information: The Public Information Officer has not furnished the sought information to the appellant. Since the appellant did not receive the information from the Public Information Officer, he filed 1st appeal dated 10-04-2018 before the 1st Appellate Authority requesting him to furnish the information sought. The First Appellate Authority through notice No. RTI.C5/2044/2018 dated 18-04-2018 posted the first appeal for hearing on 05-05-2018. Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required. As the appellant did not get information from the Public Information Officer, he preferred this 2nd appeal before this Commission requesting to arrange to furnish the information sought by him. The 2nd appeal was taken on file and notices were issued to both the parties for hearing on 21-10-2019. On 21-10-2019 the case is called. The appellant is absent. The representative of the Public Information Officer, K. Rajasekhar, Senior Assistant is present. The representative of the Public Information Officer submitted that the 6(1) application was misplaced in their office. He also submitted that he has brought Memo Rc. No. RTI/726/2019 dated 19-10-2019 to furnish to the appellant. He also requested 30 days time to furnish the information. It is seen that through the above Memo dated 19-10-2019, after more than 1 ½ years, the Public Information Officer has rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that there is no specific description of record and the record proposed for verification is vague. It is further seen that there is serious irregularity on the part of the Public Information Officer in misplacing the application filed under RTI Act, 2005. It is seen from 6(1) application that the applicant is seeking vast information. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (2011) 8 Supreme Court cases 497, where in the Apex Court at para 67 held thus:- “Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national developmentTSIC and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties”. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case the request of the appellant is rejected. The Appellant is advised to file fresh application seeking specific information before the concerned Public Information Officer. With the above observation, the case is closed. Dr. Raja Sadaram Soma Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by: Section Officer Copy to: IT Section/SF Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required..

Load more