The Arunachal Times: Pasighat: Sunday,
October 09, 2016.
Arunachal
Pradesh State Cooperative Apex bank (APSCAB) Limited run by State government is
quite reluctant to disclose about its defaulters/borrowers, who have
liabilities with the financial bank.
One Tani
Moyong of Pasighat Mirbuk village in East Siang district sought information
under RTI Act, 2005 about financial liabilities of APSCAB Ltd at its different
branches. But he was denied any financial information by the PIO cum Managing
Director of APSCAB Limited. The matter was finally dealt with by Arunachal
Pradesh Information Commission (APIC).
The APIC in
its order of last hearing conducted on 17/6/2016 noted that the PIO was denying
information without any reasonable ground thus violated Section-7 of the RTI
Act, 2005. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25000 on the PIO cum Managing
Director of APSCAB Limited for deliberately defying the orders of the
Commission in connection with the appeal case no. APIC-152/2015. It directed
the respondent to pay penalty on or before July 19, 2016.
The
Commission earlier passed several orders directing the respondent (PIO) to
furnish information to petitioner/appellant. However, the PIO did not obey the
order.
The APIC
order clearly stated that the PIO cum Managing Director of APSCAB Ltd has
malafidely denied the request for information sought by the
petitioner/appellant.
“The
commission observed that there cannot be more callous and apathetic attitude of
managing director-cum-PIO of APSCAB Ltd, Naharlagun towards a member of the
public, but also a statutory body like information commission”, the Commission
order read.
The APIC
order also stated that it was a fit case to invoke section 20(2) of RTI Act,
2005 by recommending to the state government to take appropriate disciplinary
action against the erring PIO cum Managing Director of APSCAB Ltd under the
service rules as applicable to him.
So, the
Commission directed the State’s Chief Secretary to initiate action against the
Managing Director with intimation to APIC. But, it is alleged that no action
has been taken against the erring PIO.
The
petitioner, who refers APIC report, said that neither the PIO has furnished him
information nor he paid the penalty imposed by the APIC.
.JPG)
.JPG)
