INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, – 600018. Phone: 2431 2841 Case No.1506/Enquiry/2010 Date of Enquiry: 9th JUNE 2010 at CHENNAI Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.), State Chief Information Commissioner.

Thiru G. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.), State Information Commissioner.

Petitioner: Thiru K. Raja, Tax Collector, Municipality, Valparai, District.

Public Authority: The Public Information Officer/ Executive Officer, Gudalur Municipality, The Nilgiris District. ------Both the parties were present.

The petitioner asked for information regarding some audit objection from the Assistant Director of Town Panchat, , on 16-2-2009. The Assistant Director asked him to go to the Gudalur Town Panchayat on 26-2-2009 stating that information will be available with them. So the petitioner went to the Gudalur Town Panchayat Office, since upgraded as Municipality, who replied on 25-5- 2009 that they did not have the copy of the audit objection. The petitioner appealed to the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat on 17-6-2009, who sent him again to Gudalur on 20-7-2009 stating that the information is available with the Gudalur. In the meantime, he had complained to the Commission on 18-4- 2009 and the Commission sent a direction in Case No.9424/O4 & U2/2009 dated 8-9-2009, on which he got a reply on 9-10-2009 enclosing copy of the audit objections from the Municipality. An enquiry was held in the meantime on another complaint by the petitioner on 26-2-2010 at , where he contended that having information all along, it had been denied to him. The Head clerk, who was present for the enquiry, informed the Commission that the information was not originally available with him and he went to the Office of the Assistant Director, verified the registers, got photo-copies and on that basis information was supplied. The petitioner argued that this is a wrong reply as local body all along had copy of the audit objection. as earlier to that he had complained to the Commission on 20-1- 2010. At today’s enquiry, he again contended that the reply given to him on 20-2-2009 was incorrect as the public authority all along had the information. The public authority stated that they had originally the audit objections with them and the office copy of the replies sent, but the replies were sent to the Assistant Director’s office have not been accepted by the Assistant Director’s office. It is clear in this case that both the authorities have dodged supply of information. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat had the audit objections. The audit objection is raised through the Assistant Director’s office and copies of the same must be available on their file. And so, he had no business whatsoever to send the petitioner to the local body office as he did on 26-2-2009 and 20-7-2009. The authority who holds the information is liable under the Right to Information Act and objection raised by him are information that must have been held by him and directing the petitioner to go to the local body office is incorrect. The Public Information Officer of the local body is also wrong as, all along, audit objections must have been available on their files and there is no necessity to go and get a copy from any office of the audit objections raised against their office and the replies have been provided by them and all office copies must be available wit them. So their statement earlier is again an unbelievable thing. The Commission is forced to uphold the petitioner’s point that while having the information; both the public authorities have failed to supply information. The information has since been supplied. However, the petitioner has been forced to attend two enquiries, make a lot of correspondence needlessly. The Commission therefore directs that:-- a) under Section 7(6) of the Act, all payments made by the petitioner should be refunded to the petitioner and, under Section 19(8) of the Act, and a compensation of Rs.500/- must be paid to defray expenses for attending the enquiry; and b) the personal explanation of the Public Information Officers of the Office of the Assistant Director (Panchayats), Ooty, and the Executive Officer, Gudalur Municipality, be filed before the Commission as to why penalties as per the Act should not be imposed for not supplying the information held by them within four weeks of this order.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION Orders approved on 26th July 2010 Under orders of the Commission

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Case No.1506/Enquiry/2010 The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris.

Case No.1506/Enquiry/2010 The Public Information Officer/ Executive Officer, Gudalur Municipality, The Nilgiris District.

Case No.1506/Enquiry/2010 Thiru K. Raja, Tax Collector, Valparai Municipality, Valparai, .

Fair OC / Judgment file / Scan