TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2, Thiyagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018

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. 22342/Enquiry/A/2012 (46740/A/2012) Thiru M. K.Sivarajan, S/o.Damodharan, .. APPELLANT No.42/41, Iyyamperumal Street, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. The Public Information Officer / .. PUBLIC AUTHOR ITY Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk Office, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28. ---- ORDER The appellant Thiru M.K.Sivarajan is present. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru C.Murugesan, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk Office, Chennai-28. 2. A perusal of the petition dated 10.05.2012 filed under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act would reveal that the appellant is asking for certain information in respect of an application dated 07.09.1992 submitted to the Public Authority for effecting name transfer in the Patta. In support of his application, he had also submitted a copy of the 2 registered Sale Deed evidencing his purchase of the property way back in the year 1982. It is unfortunate that the Public Authority failed to consider the request of the appellant all these decades and he had been driven from pillar to post. The appellant thereafter filed a petition dated 10.05.2012 before this Commission straightaway under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, though such a petition could not be entertained by this Commission according to law. This Commission passed an Order dated 23.07.2012 sending the application to the Public Information Officer, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk Office, Chennai-28 for necessary action. The Public Authority did not respond to the communication of this Commission. The appellant by his petition dated 04.10.2012 informed this Commission that no information was forthcoming from the Public Authority despite the communication of this Commission dated 23.07.2012. The appellant has not been provided with the information inspite of strenuous efforts on the part of the appellant. It is noteworthy that till summon in the complaint petition filed by the petitioner was sent to the Public Authority, the Public Authority was in deep slumber. They remained unmoving and immovable. 3. The Public Information Officer states in the course of the enquiry that the documents submitted by the appellant way back in the year 1992 are not available on their file. This state of affairs betrays the utter disregard for law and procedure and would only show that the Public Authority is not keen about complying with the provisions of the RTI Act. In other words, the conduct of the PIO would amount to dereliction of duty and also defeating the provisions of the RTI Act. This Commission in the recent past has noticed umpteen instances where there was casual and irresponsible way of handling the RTI Applications on the part of the PIOs. It is quite regretful. The PIO states in the course of enquiry that he will take urgent steps to consider the request of the appellant for effecting necessary name change in the patta on merits. In this state of affairs, the PIO is directed to furnish the information 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. 3 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 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, Mylapore 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. 22342/Enquiry/A/2012 (46740/A/2012) To PUBLIC AUTHORITY : The Public Information Officer/ Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk Office, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28. APPELLANT: Thiru M.K.Sivarajan, S/o.Damodharan, No.42/41, Iyyamperumal Street, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. *jb* .

Load more