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) Common order

Appeal Nos. 22792, 22798, 22799, 22800, 22801, 22802, 22805, 22806, 22807, 22808, 22811, 22812, 22821, 22830, 22831, 22832, 22833, 22834, 22796, 22797, 22803, 22804, 22809, 22810, 22813, 22814, 22815, 22816, 22835, 22836, 22837, 22841, 22842 & 22843 /CIC/2017, Dated: 25-10-2018 Appellant : Sri Y.: Krishna Reddy, Nalgonda District

Respondents : 1. The: Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o. the Chief Planning Officer, District Collectorate Compound, Nalgonda District 508 001

2. The Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP- Mellacheruvu Mandal, District

O R D E R

Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, Nalgonda District has filed 2nd appeal dated 06-10-2017 which was received by this Commission on 07-10-2017 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO /1. O/o. the Chief Planning Officer, District Collectorate Compound, Nalgonda District 508 001 2. O/o the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP-Mellacheruvu Mandal, and 1st Appellate Authority / O/o the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP-Mellacheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District

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 01-03-2017 before the PIO requesting to furnish the information under Sec.6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, on the following points mentioned in his application:

The Public Information Officer/O/o Chief Planning Officer, Nalgonda has sent the 6(1) application on 07-04-2017 to the PIO /O/o the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP- Mellacheruvu Mandal, Suryapet District with a request to furnish information in respect of Point No.2 of RTI application to the applicant while marking copy to their office.. Since the appellant did not receive the information from the Public Information Officer, he filed 1st appeal dated 07-06-2017 before the 1st Appellate Authority requesting him to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

As per the records the 1st Appellate Authority has not taken action to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders.

As the appellant did not get the information from the Public Information Officer / 1st Appellate Authority even after 30 days of filing his 1st appeal, he preferred this 2nd appeal before this Commission requesting to take action against the PIO and 1st Appellate Authority for not furnishing information sought by him and also to arrange to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The 2nd appeal was taken on file and notices were issued to both the parties for hearing on 25-10-2018.

On 25-10-2018 the case is called. These thirty four 2nd Appeals have arisen out of one application filed u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act before the PIO, O/o the CPO, Nalgonda District. Seventeen 2nd appeals were heard on 15.10.2018 and remaining sixteen second appeals are heard today.

As the subject matter of all the 34 second appeals filed by the Appellant is one and the same, the Commission propose to dispose them of through a Common Order.

The appellant is present. The Public Information Officer, Chief Planning Officer, Nalgonda District is present. The PIOs & Supdts., of O/o the MPDO, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Mothey Mandal, Mothkur Mandal, Bibi Nagar Mandal, Bhongir Mandal, Garidepally Mandal, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Penpahad Mandal, Chivvemla Mandal, Aleru Mandal, Nereducherla Mandal, Nidamanoor Mandal, Peddadisherlapally Mandal, Deverakonda Mandal, Chinthapally Mandal are present.

The FAAs&MPDOs, O/o the MPDO, Mothey Mandal, Mothkur Mandal, Bibinagar Mandal, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Penpahad Mandal, Chivvemla Mandal, Nereducherla Mandal, Nidamanoor Mandal, Peddadisherlapally Mandal, Devarakonda Mandal, Chinthapally Mandal are present.

The appellant submitted that he filed 6(1) application dated 01.03.2017 before the Public Information Officer, O/o the Chief Planning Officer, Nalgonda District seeking information on four points. According to the appellant the Public Information Officer asked him to pay certain amount for furnishing of information. Inspite of payment of requisite amount, the Public Information Officer did not furnish complete information and information was furnished for point nos.1, 3 and 4. The Public Information Officer through letter dated 07.04.2017 sent his application to all the Executive Engineers and MPDOs in the 59 Mandals in the District for furnishing the information for point no.2. The appellant further submitted that as he did not get information for point no. 2, he filed 1st appeal before the First Appellate Authorities of the O/o the CPO and the First Appellate Authority of the PIOs to whom the application was transferred u/s 6(3) of RTI Act. After filing 1st appeal, he received incomplete information from some Mandals and did not receive any information from some other mandals. According to him the information is essential to check duplication of work and to prevent double claim. The appellant submitted that the Public Information Officer, O/o the CPO did not furnish complete information with regard to point no. 1 i.e., RTI Registers I and II. Details of his applications were not mentioned in the Registers. The Public Information Officer only mentioned names of employees on outsourcing basis and he did not mention details of their qualifications; agency; procedure of appointment etc. The Public Information Officer did not furnish 4(1) (b) information in . The information furnished by the Public Information Officer with regard to point nos.3 and 4 is also not correct as there is discrepancy in the distances mentioned in the log book and details of note books purchased and distributed. The Public Information Officer did not furnish copies of tour diaries, work inspection reports etc,. The Public Information Officer, CPO, Nalgonda District submitted that through letter dated 16.03.2017 the appellant was informed to pay Rs.5600/- for furnishing available information containing 2800 pages (point no.2- 1500 pages; point no.3-400 pages and point no.4-900 pages) @ Rs.2/- per page. In reply to the same, the appellant through letter dated 22.03.2017 requested for inspection of records. Accordingly, through letter dated 24.03.2017 the appellant was permitted to inspect the records on 07.04.2017. The appellant attended the office on 24.04.2017 and 25.04.2017 and inspected the records and obtained required information containing 248 pages by paying necessary fees of Rs.526/-. The CPO further submitted that through letter dated 07.04.2017 the application was transferred U/s 6(3) to all the MPDOs and EEs in the District for furnishing information with regard to works executed through funds allotted by the Govt., and by Members of Parliament and State Legislatures from their constituency development funds including copies of DPRs, QC reports and MBs.

The CPO also submitted that based on the proposals received from the Hon’ble Members, the CPO office writes to Executing Agencies for line estimates. After receipt of the same the District Collector will accord administrative sanction and the MPDOs and EEs execute the works. After completion of works copies of M-Books along with QC reports etc., are submitted to the CPO office for payment. Subsequently, payment is made by the O/o the CPO through PD A/c of the District Collector . Only secondary information is available in the CPO office and full details are available in the O/o the MPDO and Executive Engineers. As such the application was transferred U/s 6(3) to all the MPDOs and EEs in the Mandals of the Nalgonda District. He submitted that the argument of the appellant that the CPO furnished incomplete and incorrect information is not correct. He further submitted that available and held information is furnished to the appellant with regard to log books and stationery. No tour diaries are maintained as there are no sub-ordinate offices to CPO office. The work inspection reports are not available as the executing agencies are responsible for the works. The CPO submitted that the District Collector is the competent authority for appointment of outsourcing staff through identified agency. The names of two employees working on outsourcing were furnished to the appellant and the Public Information Officer assured to furnish details of their educational qualifications to the appellant. The Public Information Officer submitted that copy of 4(1) (b) in Telugu language was also furnished to the appellant.

The CPOs further submitted that there are no subordinate offices to the O/o the Chief Planning Officer and the O/o the MPDO and EEs are separate independent public authorities.

The PIOs to whom the application was transferred submitted that the information sought by the appellant is huge and voluminous and they have requested the appellant to visit their office and inspect the records. The appellant sought information of seven years and on an average 50 to 60 works are executed under various schemes in each mandal in a year and for each work the sought information would be more than 100 pages. The resources of the public authority had to be disproportionately diverted for providing this voluminous information. The PIOs submitted that if the appellant seeks specific information relating to any specific work the same could be furnished to him immediately. However, the appellant was permitted for inspection of records and to pay requisite amount for obtaining required information. But the appellant did not pay the requisite amount. Some of the PIOs have also furnished available and held information to the appellant without insisting for payment.

The PIOs also submitted that soon after completion of work they send copies of M-Books along with copies of agreement proceedings, estimates and other relevant records to the O/o the CPO for financial sanction. Ninety percent of amount will be paid immediately and the remaining ten percent after receipt of quality control certificates.

With regard to the allegation made by the appellant about double payments for same works, the PIOs submitted that at the time of seeking administrative sanction a certificate is issued that the said work is not undertaken earlier and in certain cases the resolution of Gram Panchayat is also enclosed. All measures are taken to ensure quality in execution of works.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

It is clear from the record and the submission made by the parties that the Appellant sought information on Four Points from the office of the CPO, Nalgonda. Each point contains several items. The PIO of the CPO’s office furnished the available and held information after inspection of records and after payment of requisite charges by the Appellant for points no.1, 3 and 4. For furnishing information to point no.2, the application was transferred to the MPDOs / EEs in the district who are 59 in number. It is an admitted fact that all these 59 offices are independent administrative units having separate PIOs. As the Appellant did not receive the sought information, he preferred 1st appeal before the concerned First Appellate Authorities. Consequent upon non- receipt of information the Appellant preferred these 2nd Appeals. A reading of 6(1) application reveals that the information sought at point no.2 is very exhaustive. The applicant sought details of works taken up from 1-1-2010 to 1-3-2017 with the funds allocated by the Government and from the MPLADs and Constituency development funds of Members of Legislature including DPRs, QCs, M-Books, Budget allocated, spent and lapsed and the officers who supervised the execution of these works. The PIOs and First Appellate Authorities who attended the hearing have in one voice submitted that the information sought in respect of each work runts into hundreds of pages. Good number of works are executed by each administrative units every year and collecting the sought information more than seven years will be a very big task and would adversely effect their regular day to day working.

The impart of point no.2 of the 6(1) application is very wide and voluminous. According to the CPO, the works are executed by the office of MPDO and Executive Engineers. The MPDOs who attended the hearing submitted that for each work executed by them the administrative and financial sanction are accorded by the CPO. Thus, it is clear that the particulars of works sanctioned will be available in the CPO’s office. However, the PIOs have stated that they had permitted the Appellant to go through the records and furnished the information to the extent possible. The contention of the Appellant is that the information furnished is incomplete and there is delay.

There is no doubt that the RTI Act has been enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of Public Authorities and eradication of corruption. A specific and pointed request for information will facilitate quick and timely furnishing of information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in CBSE & another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (LNIND 2011 SC 747) indiscriminate and impractical demands would be counter –productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down.

The RTI Act is an effective device to help the citizens to be more informed. The Hon’ble High Court of AP., in Divakar S. Natarajan Vs.State Information Commissioner, Hyderabad / (LNIND 2009 AP 26) has observed indiscriminate efforts to secure information would put enormous pressure on limited human resources that are available. Those who want to derive benefit under the Act need to be more practical and realistic.

Taking into consideration the submission made by the Appellant and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., the Commission directs the PIO, O/o the CPO to furnish the list of works sanctioned along with the expenditure incurred to the Appellant for the last three years. If the Appellant entertains any iota of doubt about double payment, he may seek complete details of such works from the concerned pubic authority. The Commission also directs the PIO, O/o the CPO, Nalgonda district to furnish information with regard to qualification of outsourcing employees and also their mode of appointment and ensure that the RTI Registers are maintained in accordance with the guidelines laid down. All this information should be furnished within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report submitted to this Commission.

With this direction and observation the appeals are closed.

Dr. Raja Sadaram Soma Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated by:

Assistant Registrar Copy to: IT Section/SF

Copy to: All MPDOs in the Nalgonda District