Samachara Hakku Bhavan, D.No.5-4-399, ‘4’ Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad – 500 001
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TELANGANA 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: 040-24743399 (O); 040-24740592(F) Appeal Nos. 3768, 6067,13280, 13281, 13282, 13290, 13297, 13298 & 13299/CIC/2018, Order dated:27-10-2020 Appellant : Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, H.No.6-6-350, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Ward No.5, Nalgonda town, Nalgonda district - 508 001. Respondents : The Public Information Officer’s (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o the District Panchayat Office, Nalgonda District. : The First Appellate Authorities (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o the District Panchayat Office, Nalgonda District. COMMON ORDER Sri Y.Krishna Reddy has filed these 2nd appeals on 02-02-2018, 10-04- 2018, 12.02.2018, 26-09-2018, 26-09-2018, 26-09-2018, 26-09-2018, 26.09.2018 and 26.09.2018, respectively which was received by this Commission on 03-03-2018, 10-04-2018, 27-09-2018, 27-09-2018, 27.09.2018,27.09.2018, 27.09.2018,27.09.2018 and 27-09-2018, respectively for not getting the information sought by him from the Public Information Officer/O/o the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District and the First Appellate Authority/ O/o the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District. The brief facts of these case as per the appeals and other records received along with it are that the appellant herein filed an applications dated. 08-09-2017 before the Public Information Officer requesting to furnish the information under Sec. 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the following points mentioned: TSIC P.T.O. Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required -2- The Public Information Officer vide Letter No.2277/2017-B6 (Panchayat) dt.08-09-2017 transferred the 6 (1) application to the Public Information Officers / O/o the, Mandal Praja Parishad, Narkatpally, Kattanguru, Nakrekal, Anumula, Munugodu, Chityala and Devarakonda U/s. 6 (3) of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officers concerned vide Letters dt. 14.11.2017, 03.10.2017 30.01.2018 and 13.10.2017 asked the appellant to pay certain amount for furnishing the information. Having not satisfied with the response of the Public Information Officer, he filed 1st appeals before Mandal Parishad Development officers of Munugodu, Kattanguru, Devarakonda, Chityala, Haaliya & Nakrekal,. Stating that he has not satisfied with the response of the Public Information Officer, and not getting any reply from the First Appellate Authority, he preferred these 2nd appeals before this Commission U/s. 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 requestingTSIC to arrange to furnish the information sought by him. In view of the above, the Appeals are taken on file. In view of the spread of Covid-19 Pandemic, all these cases are heard together over phone on 27.10.2020 with prior intimation to the concerned parties. Y.Krishna Reddy, the appellant and the Public Information Officer, O/o the District Panchayath Office, Nalgonda responded to the phone call. All these cases referred to arise out of one 6(1) application dated 08.09.2017 filed before the Public Information Officer/ O/o. District Panchayath Office, Nalgonda. Therefore all these cases are heard together and a common order is passed. The appellant submitted that he did not receive any information from the Public Information Officer. P.T.O. Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required 3. The Public Information Officer submitted that as the information is scattered among different Mandal Praja Parishad Offices, the 6(1) application was transferred to the Public Information Officers of concerned Mandal Praja Parishad Offices U/s. 6 (3) of the RTI Act for furnishing information directly to the appellant under intimation to their office and some PIO’s of O/o Mandal Praja Parishad sent replies to the appellant to pay certain amount referring to the Provisions of the RTI Act for furnishing the information. A perusal of the 6 (1) application filed in these cases would go to show that the Appellant had sought very vast information and also not specific information, which is almost impractical for the Public Information Officer to furnish such information. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (arising out of SLPI No. 7526/2009 in CBSE and Anr. (Appellants) vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & others (Respondents) wherein the Court observed thus: “…….Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.” It is seen from the material available on record that the Public Information Officer videTSIC letter No.2277/2017 dt.08.09.2017 transferred the R.T.I Application to the PIOs of different Mandal Praja Parishad Offices under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed 1st appeals in all these cases before the M.P.D.O., O/o the concerned Mandal Praja Parishads Office, in Nalgonda District. As he did not get any information, he filed these 2nd appeals before this Commission. A perusal of the record would disclose that the Public Information Officer instead of transferring 6 (1) to only one Public Information Officer, has transferred the 6 (1) application to different Public Information Officers against the guidelines given by the Government of India in Office Memorandum No.10/2/2008-IR, dated 12.06.2008, which reads thus: P.T.O Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required 4 “3. Given hereinunder are some situations which may arise in the matter and action required to be taken by the Public Authorities in such cases: (i) …. (ii) A person makes an application to a Public Authority for information only a part of which is available with that public authority and a part of the information concerns some another “public authority’. In such a case the Public Information Officer should supply information available with and a copy of the application should be sent to that another public authority under intimation to the Appellant. (iii) A person makes an application to a public authority for information a part of which is available with that public authority and rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the Public Information Officer of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them, if no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities the Public Information Officer should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned Public Authorities for obtaining information from them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 referred to supra the appellant is advised to seek information to minimum extent possible and to ask for specific information and Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 12.06.2018, referred to above, the Public Information Officer ought to have transferred the RTI application to only one Public Authority by furnishing available and held information with him and would have advised the appellant to file separate applications to the concernedTSIC Public Authorities for the remaining information. Therefore, the Public Information Officer/ O/o. District Panchayath Office, Nalgonda is directed to furnish information available in their office to the appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due under intimation to the Commission and the Appellant is at liberty to file separate applications afresh U/s. 6 (1) with other public authorities concerned by seeking specific information required. With the above direction, all these appeals are disposed of. BUDDHA MURALI CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (FAC) Authenticated by: (P.S. to CIC (FAC)) Copy to: SO / SF / OC Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required TSIC BUDDHA MURALI CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (FAC) Authenticated by: (P.S. to CIC (FAC)) Copy to: SO / SF / OC Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required.