Official overrules, modifies RTI order passed by his predecessor

Times of India: Chennai: Monday, 01 February 2016.

Can an information commissioner overrule an order passed by his colleague and modify the directions in a subsequent hearing of the same appeal?

The question has puzzled an RTI applicant who applied for documents regarding 135 electricity connections given to a building in Sowcarpet in two years.

Appellant J Parasmal filed RTI applications seeking the documents pertaining to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) giving a certain building in Sowcarpet 135 electricity connections. In an earlier order, he was told that since the connections were given in 1997, the documents were lost.

During a subsequent appeal hearing of the same case on February 11, 2014, information commissioner Christopher Nelson IPS (retd) passed an order directing the TNEB to give the relevant documents within 30 days for free. He also observed that the argument that 'documents were lost' was not permissible.

"If documents are not available, have they been destroyed? Stolen? Lost? Where were they lost? Who is responsible for the loss? Along with answers to these questions, the department must also explain the action taken against the officials responsible in a sworn affidavit in the next hearing by the department," Nelson ordered.

Since a vigilance report had noted that the connections were given illegally, the TNEB must explain what action had been taken against officials responsible, even if they had retired, for giving the connections, Nelson said and posted the case for hearing on March 18, 2014. The information commissioner during that hearing was S F Akbar. For the order he relied on the affidavits filed by the chief engineer, South and Public Information Officer.

The affidavit stated officials could trace the records relating to the connections but they were old and brittle. Akbar accepted the chief engineer's contention that the officials who granted the connections had retired. He said "the need [to pursue the directions by Nelson] would not arise" and closed the appeal.

Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said that the final order in an appeal should be passed in one hearing and that it was a good practice to hold every hearing by the same commissioner. But he declined to comment on which commissioner was right.

Parasmal filed an appeal with the state chief information commissioner (CIC) on July 4, 2014 and has not gotten a reply as on date. While Nelson declined to comment, Akbar remained unavailable for comment despite repeated attempts.