TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-Operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018. Phone: 2431 2841 Case No.32653/Enquiry/2009 Date of Enquiry: 30th 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 S. Muthamizh Mudhalvan, Bathalapally Village, Kumudhapally Post, Hosur Taluk. Public Authority: The Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range. ------ Both the parties were present. The petitioner asked for the report sent about him certifying that he is a good officer and has nothing which can be held against him under Right to Information Act on 3-7-2009. Despite this report, on an anonymous petition he was suspended from service. This was sent by the Director General of Police on 14-7-2009 to the concerned Deputy Inspector General, Salem Range, who did not immediately reply as per the Act. Not getting a reply, he appealed again to the Director General of Police on 27-8-2009 and 8-9-2009 and to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, on 14-10-2009. Meanwhile, by a letter signed on 16-10-2009, he was denied information by the Deputy Inspector General stating that since the report has been marked as ‘Strictly Confidential’, it cannot be made available to him, and he should approach the head office for the same. He came on appeal to the Commission on 20-12-2009 resulting in today’s (30-6-2010) enquiry. At the enquiry the above facts were averred. The Public Information Officer of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, who was present, accepted that he sent a wrong reply, and there is no provision in the Act for them to deny the information; but they could not make it available to the petitioner as it is marked as ‘Strictly Confidential’ and it was marked for the preliminary enquiry by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Within the confines of the Right to Information Act, the Commission has therefore to hold that the denial is incorrect and allow the appeal made by the petitioner. The Right to Information Act specifically says that it over-rides the Official Secrets Act and citing the provisions of the same is to defy the law passed by the Parliament of India. The Commission therefore directs that:-- a) the information be made available to the petitioner within a week of this order, his acknowledgment obtained and filed before the Commission; b) The information shall be made available free of cost and the fees if any already paid by the petitioner should be refunded to him; c) The petitioner be compensated with Rs.500/- to cover his travel expenses for having made to attend this enquiry needlessly by unjust denial, as per the provisions under Section 19(8) of the Act; and d) The personal explanation of the Public Information Officer concerned be obtained as to why the penal clause of the Act should not be operated and file the same before the Commission within four weeks of this order. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION Orders approved on 26th July 2010 Under orders of the Commission ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Case No.32653/Enquiry/2009 The Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem – 636 001. Case No.32653/Enquiry/2009 Thiru S, Muthamizh Mudhalvan, Bathalapally Village, Kumudhapally Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Fair OC / Judgment file / Scan .