TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Tel: 24357580 DATE OF ORDER – 17.07.2014 PRESENT Thiru S.F. AKBAR, B.Sc. B.L., STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Case No. 35666/Enquiry/A/2012 (7399/A/2013) (34441/A/2011) Thiru M.Swaminathan, No.54, Rameswaram Road, .. APPELLANT Theyagarayanagar, Chennai-600017. The Public Information Officer / .. PUBLIC AUTHORITY Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. ---- ORDER The appellant Thiru M.Swaminathan is present. The Public Authority is represented by Tmt.N.Usha, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai-53. 2. In the R.T.I. Petition dated 09.06.2011 filed under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the appellant is asking for certain information in 2 regard to Survey Numbers 65, 66/1A1, 66/2B in Pattaravakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk from 01.01.1990 to till date. No reply has been sent by the Public Authority despite a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act followed by this Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act. The Public Information Officer has not thought it fit to respond to the request of the appellant to furnish information required by him. This would only show the dismal failure on the part of the Public Authority in discharging their statutory duties. The appellant is before this Commission by way of Second Appeal under Section 19(3) asking for the above information as also by way of complaint under Section 18 of the Act. It is very unfortunate that the Public Authority has not chosen to respond to the request of the appellant within the time stipulated by law and they have been dilly dallying all these years. The appellant has expressed his agony in no uncertain terms in the course of enquiry before this commission. It is indeed a matter which needs to be looked into with urgency. Today the PIO has furnished some information to the appellant and the appellant after going through the same would come forth with a comment that this might reflect only the latest position and what he wanted is the names of the owners of the land, patta number, extent of land, FMB sketch etc. for the above said Survey Numbers from 01.01.1990 and its historical developments. 3. During the course of today’s enquiry, the PIO states that the available information have been furnished to the appellant. This is no excuse for the PIO for not furnishing the information which the appellant is asking for. Such an answer would only be vague and indefinite and will not meet the requirements of law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is of the considered view that the object of justice will be better served by enabling the appellant to inspect the records in the Office of the Public Authority and identify the records, copies of which he needs and in which event, the Public Authority would be duty bound to furnish those copies subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant agrees to this course. The appellant will pay a visit to the Office of the Public Authority on 18.07.2014 during office hours for this purpose. 3 4. This Commission after examining the materials on record would only come to a conclusion that both the PIO and the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office have omitted to perform their duty promptly realizing the responsibilities cast on them by law. Their approach could only be labeled as abdication of their statutory responsibility of furnishing information. This Commission is impelled in the facts and circumstances of the case to call upon both of them to explain as to why the penal provisions of the RTI Act viz. 20(1) and 20(2) should not be invoked against them. As such, the Public Information Officer who is the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office are called upon to explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- should not be imposed on them for their casual attitude resulting in failure in complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. They are also called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act for their continued lapses stated supra. This appeal is ordered in the above terms. 5. The matter stands adjourned to .......... at 11.00 A.M. for the appearance of the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority. Sd/- (S.F.AKBAR) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 Case No. 35666/Enquiry/A/2012 (7399/A/2013) (34441/A/2011) To PUBLIC AUTHORITY : The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. The Appellate Authority/ The Tahsildar Ambattur Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. APPELLANT: Thiru M.Swaminathan, No.54, Rameswaram Road, Theyagarayanagar, Chennai-600017. *jb* .