Times of
India: Thiruvananthapuram: Sunday, 23 February 2020.
Armed
with the Right to Information Act, 2005, an advocate filed an application
seeking certain information on adulteration from the food safety commissioner.
Almost two years later, he is still waiting for a satisfactory response.
P
T Muraleedharan had filed the application first in June 2018, posing eight
queries, including information on action taken against individuals and
companies for adulteration, and details of prosecution during the previous two
years.
He
waited for four months, though the RTI Act stipulates a response within 30 days
of receiving the application. The department gave him a reply in November 2018,
after the intervention of the State Information Commission (SIC).
The
department, however, left the critical queries on the number of cases
registered, persons prosecuted, and penalty received during the period
2016-2018 unanswered.
SIC
summoned the parties for a hearing in which it was agreed that the information
would be provided within a week. The applicant, however, received a reply after
a month, and again it was incomplete, forcing him to approach the SIC again.
He
pointed out that the department had given him only the numbers and not the
details on the number of adjudication cases, number of disposed ones, how many
companies faced prosecution and how many companies were shut down.
Not
satisfied with the response, Muraleedharan battled on. In March 2019, SIC
slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on public information officer and cited that the
information officer tweaked the applicant's question and denied answers on a
matter of grave importance.
The
information commissioner, K V Sudhakaran, observed that those who pose threat
to public health through adulteration indulge in anti-social activity and it
was regrettable to note that some of the officials were in cahoots with them.
The commission also observed that the public information officer had not acted
in a transparent manner.
Sabu
PC, the information officer who was slapped with the fine, approached the high
court against the penalty and the court directed SIC to consider the case again
and issue a new order. SIC issued the new order slapping fines of Rs 500 on G
Gopakumar and Rs 25,000 on Sabu. SIC again observed that the information
furnished by food safety commissionerate was incomplete.
"The
furnishing of information regarding adulteration is crucial to public health
and safety," the order issued by KL Vivekanandan, SIC said.
Muraleedharan,
however, is determined to get a proper response.
.JPG)
.JPG)
