Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Monday,
December 12, 2016.
Latter is
denying information on its security apparatus despite a 15-day deadline.
It seems the
state information commission and Rajbhavan are at loggerheads. While KIC
(Karnataka Information Commission) set Rajbhavan a 15-day deadline to provide
information on the security staff at work, the latter has dismissed the demand.
This has led
to a debate whether KIC has jurisdiction over Rajbhavan matters. KIC had passed
an order to this extent after hearing a petition pertaining to the Rajbhavan
PIO. However, after concluding that the information that had been sought was
nothing personal, the commission had issued a direction to Rajbhavan PIO to
furnish the information. However, not adhering to the judgment, Rajbhavan has
yet again drawn flak for denial of information - a fundamental right, T
Narasimhamurthy, the petitioner in the case told Bangalore Mirror.
The case
pertains to an RTI application Murthy had filed on June 11, 2015. The
information he had sought included a complete list of security staff police
and non-police employed presently at the office of the governor, designation,
rank, pay scale, date of their joining the governor’s office, facilities
provided to each security staff such as quarters, equipment, vehicles etc.
Murthy had also sought inspection of records under the RTI Act with respect to
the same and had sought time and day for inspection.
The
information was denied initially. Murthy, who has taken up several issues in
the past of public importance including ones resulting in orders declaring
Karnataka Golf Association, Karnataka Turf Club and KSCA under the purview of
RTI Act, had sought information so as to know if Rajbhavan was overstaffed as
most state government departments are suffering shortage of staff.
As
information was denied, he filed an appeal moving the state information
commission on September 4, 2015. The commission had taken up the case on
October 28. The Rajbhavan PIO and undersecretary had appeared. The PIO claimed
that the information was confidential and couldn’t be shared. However, Murthy
argued that the information which had been sought was nothing personal and was
no secret as Rajbhavan was a public office. The commission which heard both
sides, concluded that the information sought was not personal, and directed
Rajbhavan to provide the information that had been sought within 15 days. But
till date, the information has not been provided, giving way to a KIC versus
Rajbhavan scenario. “If it is not shared, then it seems they wish to hide
something,” Murthy said.
Murthy
maintained that on February 14, the date on which the next hearing will be
held, a requisition for penalising staff for the fault will be made.
.JPG)
.JPG)
