TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Tel: 24357580
DATE OF ORDER – 22.07.2014
PRESENT
Thiru S.F. AKBAR, B.Sc., B.L., STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Case No. 36110/Enquiry/A/2012 (54753/A/2012)
Thiru Ashok Kothari, .. APPELLANT No.30/67, Kalathiappa Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112.
The Public Information Officer / .. PUBLIC AUTHORITY Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkam Taluk Office, Near Nehru Indoor Stadium, Chennai-600 003.
---- ORDER
The appellant Thiru Ashok Kothari is present. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru G.Immanuel Balakumar, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Purasawalkam Taluk
Office, Chennai-3.
2. A perusal of the petition dated 06.03.2012 filed under Section 6(1) of the
RTI Act would reveal that the appellant is asking for certain information in regard to the 2 question whether any counter was filed by the Corporation of Chennai as one of the respondents in W.P.No.18736/2007. The appellant states that he got a reply from the
Legal Cell of the Corporation of Chennai to the effect that in as much as the details from the Purasawalkam-Perambur Tahsildar Office in respect of R.S.No.885/23 could not be obtained from the said Office, counter could not be filed before the Hon'ble High
Court in the said Writ Petition. The appellant seeks to know by way of confirmation whether this information is correct. The PIO states that the Perambur-Purasawalkam
Taluk Office had been bifurcated on 12.02.2014 as Perambur and Purasawalkam Taluk
Offices and in the process of shifting the office, the file got misplaced. This is not an explanation to be readily accepted since the RTI Petition is of the year 2012.
3. The PIO undertakes to furnish the information within ten days. His undertaking is recorded. In the course of today's enquiry, the appellant says that he is asking for this information in respect of an alleged illegal construction put up by an individual in the space set apart for drainage by the Corporation of Chennai. In this state of affairs, the PIO is directed to furnish the information within ten days from the date of receipt of this order free of cost under section 7(6) of the
RTI Act, by registered post with acknowledgement due and report compliance to this Commission in fifteen days.
4. 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 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 3 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
Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Purasawalkam Taluk 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.
Sd/- (S.F.AKBAR) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
(BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Case No. 36110/Enquiry/A/2012 (54753/A/2012) To
PUBLIC AUTHORITY :
The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkam Taluk Office, Near Nehru Indoor Stadium, Chennai-600 003.
APPELLANT:
Thiru Ashok Kothari, No.30/67, Kalathiappa Street, Choolai, Chennai-600 112.
*jb*