Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Monday,
May 16, 2016.
Revenue dept
is yet to provide info sought in 2013, Sahitya Parishat gives it over email in
days
Like a coin
that has two opposite faces, officials of one department of the state
government have drawn the ire of the information commission while those of
another are setting a trend of sorts, as they both deal with the Right to
Information Act.
In the first
case, non-furnishing of information even after repeated orders, non-payment of
Rs 2,500 penalty after repeated notices and not attending court hearings has
landed a revenue department official in serious trouble, with the information
commission ordering a disciplinary inquiry against him.
In the
second, a government body is going the e-way to provide information at the
click of a button as it has started sending information by email to set an
example.
First case
The first
case pertains to the revenue department. In what could be seen as a lesson for
all government officials, action has been recommended against the tahsildar of
Anekal as even three years after an applicant sought information from the
revenue department, he has been denied it.
The
appellant, Balaji, had sought some information pertaining to Survey number 67
in Butallli village in Jigani hobli in September 2013. He wanted information on
the land records from 1956 till date. However, the Anekal revenue office did
not provide the required information to him.
In October 2013,
Balaji filed his first appeal with the sub-divisional officer, but in vain.
Next, he moved the information commission. The commission observed that
Mallikarjun was the commissioner between September 2013 and February 2014 and
from there on Anil Kumar was the tahsildar.
The
commission asked the PIO to provide the necessary information within 15 days on
October 1, 2014. The case was posted to April 16, 2015. The same day, the
commission penalised the tahsildar Rs 2,500 and asked him to pay the fine and
provide information within 30 days. He was also issued a show-cause notice as
to why Rs 1,000 compensation should not be taken from him. The case was posted
to March 28, 2016 directing the PIO to produce proof of providing the
information and payment of fine. But again, neither information was provided
nor the receipt. After it was not produced on March 28, the case was posted to
April 26.
Besides not
furnishing the information, the revenue officials concerned did not attend the
hearing. With no intimation, the commission ordered disciplinary action against
the PIO of Anekal. Revenue department principal secretary B Basavaraju has been
asked to act and submit an action-taken report by May 23.
3 days
flat
In a glaring
contrast, Kannada Sahithya Parishat has started sending information under
Section 4 (1) (a) (indexing and cataloguing) and 4 (1) (b) (particulars of the
organisation, functions and duties etc) by email immediately after receiving an
application under RTI, thereby drastically reducing the waiting period to get
information. To information sought by activist Pramod Halkatti on May 2, it was
sent via email on May 5.
Activists,
welcoming the Parishat's response, termed it an example for other departments
to emulate.
"When
the whole world is moving towards e-governance, information sought under the
RTI Act is being provided by post. Parishat providing required information by
email is heart-warming. Other departments that don't provide information for
years should take it as an example and follow suit to keep the spirit of RTI
Act soaring," Veeresh B, an RTI activist, said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
