The Times of India: Goa: Monday, May 21, 2012.
The Goa state information commission has ordered the office of the Goa chief electrical engineer to pay compensation of 5,000 to a citizen who received misleading information to his application under the Right to Information Act.
In this context, the Goa state chief information commissioner M S Keny recently noted, "Harassment of an information seeker by public authorities is not permissible under RTI. Besides, it is socially abhorring."
The commissioner noted that instead of going for penal provision, the commission is considering "compensating the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the matter. Secondly, this approach will have a telling effect as it may drastically improve work culture and also change the outlook."
Ordering the office of the chief electrical engineer to pay compensation of 5,000 to the complainant, the commission also directed that the money be paid from the funds of the electricity department.
The case relates to one Vernon Fonseca of Lokhandwala complex in Andheri, Mumbai. In October 2010, Fonseca sought information under RTI from the office of the Goa chief electrical engineer as follows, "Kindly issue me certified copies of memorandums received by your office from the office of chief minister of Goa, and the office of President of India, as mentioned in your letter dated April 20, 2010. Kindly also issue me certified copies of reports sent to these offices as per your letter dated April 20, 2010."
In its reply dated November 22, 2010, the office of the chief electrical engineer informed Fonseca that the report was not received from the executive engineer, electricity division VI, Mapusa, till date as such no report was sent to the higher authority. It was also informed that the RTI application was transferred to the executive engineer, division VI, Mapusa for disposal from his end.
Even after his first appeal, the applicant was not satisfied. In his submission to the Goa state information commission, he complained that the "information is incomplete and misleading."
Having scrutinized the case, the commission held that the actions of public information officer "amount to furnishing misleading information. The appellant as a result suffered detriment on account of failure to provide correct information. The appellant through his power of attorney holder had to come many a times to the commission with the hope that correct information would be furnished. This naturally caused mental and physical harassment to the appellant."
.JPG)
.JPG)
