TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, , 600 018. Tel: 24357580

DATE OF ORDER – 22.07.2014

PRESENT

Thiru S.F. AKBAR, B.Sc., B.L., STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Case No. 43386/Enquiry/A/2013

Thiru G.Shanmugam, .. APPELLANT No.983-C, GST Road, Urappakkam-603 210, Kancheepuram District

The Public Information Officer/ .. PUBLIC AUTHORITY Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai, (Near Polimer Hotel), Chetput, Chennai-600 034. ----

ORDER

The appellant Thiru G.Shanmugam is present. The Public Authority is represented by Tmt.K.Mallika, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chennai-31.

2. The appellant has sought for certain information regarding verification of the Community Certificate of his wife Tmt.S.Anandhi, employee in the . The information has been sought by an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, dated 27.5.2013. A perusal of the records would reveal that the Community Certificate of the said Tmt.Anandhi was sent by the University on 6.8.2012 to the Deputy Tahsildar Egmore-, Chennai-31 for verification of the community to which she belonged. Subsequently, the University of Madras by its letter dated 11.7.2013 had written to the Collector to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificate in question. In the said letter, the Chennai District Collector has been requested to bestow his personal attention and cause verification of the genuineness of the Community Certificate and send a report so as to enable the University of Madras to confirm her services in the University. In the said letter, the University of Madras has informed that the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam in his letter dated 4.3.2013 has stated that related records of the Community Certificate issued to the said Anandhi was not available in the Office and as such the genuineness of the Community Certificate could not be verified. It is this state of affairs that had necessitated the University of Madras to write to the Chennai District Collector bringing to her knowledge the sorry state of affairs. The First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act purports to have been preferred to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5 who is not the First Appellate Authority. This is followed by this Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, to this Commission.

3. In the RTI Petition, the appellant has sought for the following information in five items:

1) “Information regarding date of receipt of the Community Certificate sent by the University of Madras to the Tahsildar, Egmore, Chennai. 2) Information on the action taken so far by the Tahsildar, Egmore, Chennai.

3) Information regarding the necessity/compulsion of residence of a female even after marriage insisted upon by the revenue authorities of Egmore Taluk Office. 4) Information regarding the statutory period of time limit for such verification by the Taluk Office, Egmore, Chennai. 5) Copy of information regarding the movement, action taken by the Tahsildar available in the files of Taluk Office, if any".

4. No reply has been sent to the appellant till today. In respect of the first item, the PIO is directed to inform the appellant the date on which the RTI Petition was received by the Taluk Office from the Chennai District Collector. For the second item, the information furnished does not appear to be appropriate. With regard to third item, the appellant drops the third query. In respect of 4 th item, proper reply has been given. In respect of 5 th item, the action taken by the PIO from the date of receipt of the RTI Petition culminating in the issuance of the genuineness Certificate of the Community Certificate shall be furnished by the PIO to the appellant in one week.

5. In this state of affairs, the PIO shall furnish the appropriate information for Item Nos. 1, 2 and 5 within one week 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.

6. This Commission after examining the materials on record would only come to the conclusion that the PIO has omitted to perform her duty promptly realizing the responsibilities cast on her by law. Her approach could only be labeled as abdication of her 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 why the penal provisions of the RTI Act viz. 20(1) and 20(2) should not be invoked against her. As such, the Public Information Officer who is the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk is called upon to explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- should not be imposed on him for her casual attitude resulting in failure in complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. She is also called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act for her continued lapses stated supra.

Sd/- (S.F.AKBAR) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

(BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Case No. 43386/Enquiry/A/2013

To

PUBLIC AUTHORITY :

The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore Taluk Office, No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai, (Near Polimer Hotel), Chetput, Chennai-600 034.

APPELLANT:

Thiru G.Shanmugam, No.983-C, GST Road, Urappakkam-603 210, Kancheepuram District.

*jb*