TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2 Theagaraya Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Tel: 24347590 Date of Enquiry :23.08.2017 Present : Thiru K. RAMANUJAM, I.P.S .,(Retd.) State Chief Information Commissioner. Case No.SA-130/SCIC/2017 Thiru R. Venkataraman ….. APPELLANT vs The Public Information Officer …. PUBLIC AUTHORITY Office of the Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Mayiladuthurai. ----- ORDER Date of petition filed under Sec.6(1) of RTI Act 29.09.2016 Date of PIO’s Reply 01.11.2016 Date of First Appeal filed under Sec.19(1) 09.11.2016 Date of Second Appeal under Sec.19(3) 02.01.2017 Commissions order dated 04.05.2017 ****** The petitioner / appellant Thiru R. Venkataraman is present for today’s enquiry. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru P. Aravindhan, Manager, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai. 2. The petition under RTI was sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam who forwarded it to the Public Information Officer in the office of the Joint Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai and reply was sent by the latter as the temple was under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner. 3. The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the replies given by the Public Information Officer to Sl. Nos. 4, 5,9, 10, 13, 17 & 18. 4. Sl.Nos.4 & 5: Both relate to request for copies of orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam or by higher officials about keeping idols from other temples under safe custody in Pandanallur Pasupatheeswarar Temple. The Public Information Officer had declined to part with the information citing grounds of safety. The appellant says that he has got the required material in the form of six circulars from the H. R &C E headquarters, Chennai through another petition under Right to Information Act and is satisfied with them but questions the bona fides of the Public Information Officer in rejecting the request on grounds of safety when the head of the department has given the very same circulars. A perusal of the circulars secured by the petitioner from the head of the department shows that these are circulars addressed to Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Executive Officers across the state. Ideally, this material should be requested from the head of department who issued the circulars and not from subordinate officials. The petitioner has got the material from the head of the department through another application and is satisfied with the material. The stand taken by the Public Information Officer cannot be rejected off hand because safe custody of ancient idols is a matter involving economic interests of the state and free disclosure may lead to incitement of offence and these are grounds on which exemption under Section 4(1)(a) can be claimed. The head of the department, as public authority, can over-rule this exemption vide powers vested in him in Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the mere fact that the head of the department chose to give the circulars will not be sufficient reason to hold a Public Information Officer guilty. 5. Sl.No.9: The appellant had asked how much time is permitted for deposit of idols from the time of issue of an order. In the reply, it has been stated that if any time limit is mentioned in the order, deposit should be done within the time framed but if there is default, ratification should be obtained. 6. Sl.No.10: The appellant has asked whether orders about movement of idols is recorded in the computer and whether information is communicated the Joint Commissioner then and there. In the reply the Public Information Officer has stated that no orders have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner about deposit of idols at Pandanallur temple for safe custody. The appellant points out that this reply contradicts the reply given in Sl.No.9. However, the reply to Sl No 9 reads like what would be the situation if an Assistant Commissioner hypothetically issues an order. 7. S.No.13: Information has been sought about the authority which permitted the conversion of an ancient tunnel in the temple into a safe deposit centre for idols. The Public Information Officer has stated that there is no record about tunnel in the temple. The appellant states that according to the Archeology Department there are tunnels. He adds that one such tunnel was being used by the Executive Officer unauthorizedly for keeping idols from other temples. 8. Sl.No.17: The petitioner wants to know in whose custody the keys of the main gates of the temple are kept. The Public Information Officer has stated this information cannot be disclosed considering the safety of the temple. The appellant states that HR&CE rules specify that the keys should be with the Executive Officer and Hereditary Trustee. If the rules stipulate the custodians for the keys, then the information is in public domain and the Public Information Officer cannot be expected to answer this question individually. 9. Sl.No.18: This relates to surveillance or supervision register and the petitioner has asked for copies of all such registers. This has been turned down on the ground of the safety of the temple. The demand in this item is an omnibus one and does not specify any particular register. Further in the written representation submitted to the Commission, the appellant states that the material would be useful for ongoing police investigation. If there is police investigation, the concerned officer would be liberty to summon the records and scrutinize them without any let or hindrance. During the enquiry the appellant says he required inspection reports but later elaborated that he wanted verification registers. It is not clear which particular document he has in mind. In the absence of exact nature of the material required the Commission is not inclined to give any directions to this matter. 10. It is brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant in this case has filed a Criminal OP in the High Court alleging that ancient idols of temples in villages around Pandanallur temple were stocked unofficially in the temple and some of them went missing and that instead of being kept in the Icon centre the idols were kept unauthorizedly in a tunnel in the tunnel. In an order dated 30.06.17, the High Court has ordered that an FIR must be immediately registered by the idol wing based on the complaint of the petitioner (the appellant in this case before this Commission). The petitioner states that an FIR accordingly has been filed in Crime No.4/2017 under Section 457, 380 and 202 IPC by the Idol Wing. All the materials sought by the petitioner are directly or indirectly related to the matter under investigation and disclosure of information under Right to Information Act could possibly prejudicially affect the investigation and apprehension of the offenders and hence subject to exemption under 8(1)(h) of the Act. The petitioner makes it clear that his intention was to unearth the facts behind the disappearance of idols and he was the view that the material sought by him could be useful in the Criminal OP filed by him and in subsequent police investigation. Now that the Criminal OP has been disposed of in his favour and criminal investigation has been set in motion, the Commission feels that the matter is best left to the police to investigate by seizing all relevant records. Unnecessary handling and copying of the records could in fact harm the investigation. Sd/-(K.RAMANUJAM) STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER //By Order// Assistant Registrar Case No.SA-130 /SCIC/2017 To The Public Information Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Mayiladuthurai. Thiru R. Venkataraman PVR House, 1, 2 &3 Thirumalai Street, Jai Balaji Nagar K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078 TK/PA 28.08.2017 .