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."