Oherald: Panjim: Monday, May 28, 2018.
Expressing
concern over the lethargic attitude of government authorities in preserving
information, The State Information Commission (SIC) has questioned the casual
approach of the First Appellate Authority in handling Right To Information
(RTI) related matters.
Addressing
the 4th RTI Convention on Sunday, State Information Commissioner Advocate
Pratima Vernekar highlighted the pitiable state in which the precious
information is handled by the authorities concerned.
“Public authorities are not serious in
systematically preserving the information. In one case it was found that the
records were dumped in the pump house while in another case it was reported
that during the shifting of the offices the documents were misplaced and are
not traceable,” she said citing instances that came to light during hearing of
the cases before the Commission.
She cited an
instance wherein commands to subordinates are given verbally instead of written
orders, a move that obstructs bringing transparency in the system.
Pointing at
the mutilated condition in which documents are preserved in certain offices,
Vernekar insisted at preserving such information by adopting modern techniques
like micro filming, etc.
It is also
the grievance of the Public Information Officers that they hold simultaneous
charges of 3-4 departments and as such, they are not able to deliver their
duties under the RTI Act ‘with utmost sincerity and case.’ Vernekar claimed the Commission found this
issue genuine as it is supported by documentary evidence.
“Besides it
is also observed by the Commission that the First Appellate Authority acts in
purely mechanical manner and gives decisions without applying his/her mind.
Sometimes they do not even pass orders. This casual approach also requires to
be addressed. As per the Act, the senior officer has to be appointed as the
First Appellate Authority. However, in some cases it is seen that the chairman
of the public authorities are appointed as the First Appellate Authority, which
is contrary to the provisions of the Act,” she added.