Friday, May 20, 2016

Info panel tells BMC to compensate applicant from official's salary

DNA‎‎‎: Mumbai: Friday, May 20, 2016.
In a one of its kind order, the state information commission (SIC) has asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to compensate an applicant by paying him Rs20,000 for the harassment meted out to him.
However, the exception here is that the civic authority has been told to release the compensation money from the salary of the officer concerned. Usually, it is the public authorities to which the public information officers (PIO) belong, that are directed to give compensation.
The order was given after Vile Parle resident Ashwin Hirani was denied the information that he had sought. Hirani had sought details of the approved plan of his building, the place which was marked as unauthorised construction, the notice they had slapped for demolition of the construction, the rule under which the notice for unauthorised construction in his flat was given and details of the number of houses in the jurisdiction of the engineer existing without an authorised plan.
"I had actually saved a government land from being given away to a builder. Since I complained, they started harassing me. They slapped a notice saying that the loft in my flat is unauthorised and that I should demolish it. The loft existed even before I was born and was part of the building before we moved in as tenants," claimed Hirani.
"The official who came for the hearing was from the building and factory department and represented the PIO. However, during the hearing, he said it was not his responsibility to provide information. The order should serve as a lesson to all officials who are corrupt and who harass," added Hirani.
During the hearing, the commission observed that while illegal constructions were rampant and approved plans were being asked from applicants by the officers, it went on to state that the PIO showed "exceptional irresponsibility" by not providing the information that was sought in September 2015.
The compensation is to be deducted from the salary of the representative who defended the PIO's case and is said to be from the department. The order, passed by state information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad, directs the first appellate authority (FAA) to deduct the amount by mid-June. It also directs the municipal commissioner to conduct an inquiry into why the information was not being provided and to fix up the responsibility on all the people involved.
When dna asked Gaikwad about the RTI Act stating that compensations are to be given by the public authority and not from an official's salary, Gaikwad replied: "That public authority includes PIOs and it is the discretion of the commission to charge the PIO rather than tax payer's money."
Bhaskar Prabhu, an RTI activist, said, "Compensation is to be paid by the public authority, but some authorities have made modalities (in rules) which state that if the authority is to give compensation for a mistake made by a PIO, then it should be recovered from the PIO's salary after a hearing. This decision was taken by some authorities after there was a furore about public money being given as compensation due to a PIO's fault."