Times of India: Panaji: Sunday, July 09, 2017.
A common
grouse among RTI applicants who appeal to the state information commission, for
information not provided to them, is that of public information officers citing
'missing records'.
In such
cases, public information officers are asked to file an affidavit stating the
records are missing. "We don't take their word for it, but insist on an
affidavit stating that the records cannot be found," state information
commissioner Prashant Tendolkar says, adding that this is a general trend.
"If the
records are not there, the PIO cannot be held responsible. Preservation of the
records has nothing to do with the commission. The government should take the
initiative to preserve records for proper implementation of the RTI Act,"
he says.
In case, a
public information officer files a false affidavit, it is up to the head of the
concerned department to take action against the PIO, he says. This year, 114
appeals and complaints were filed before the commission, majority of which are
appeals that deal with panchayats where RTI applicants want to know the action
and follow up action taken by the bodies following complaints. A number of
cases also deal with the department of town and country planning and the Mapusa
municipal council, in particular.
According to
the RTI Act, 2005, the state information commission can impose a penalty if it
finds that the public information officer has refused to receive an application
for information or has not furnished information sought within the time
specified, or was malafidely denied the request for information.
Tendolkar
says the commission cannot impose penalties arbitrarily unless there is glaring
evidence that there was a deliberate attempt not to provide the information.
"The principles as far as imposition of penalty have been streamlined by
high court judgments, where it is upon the seeker of information to produce
sufficient evidence to show that there was intentional delay," he says.
The chief
information commissioner together with the two state information commissioners
hear between 25-30 cases on a daily basis, he says.
Space
constraints within the office prevent other members of the public from sitting
in during hearings, he says, denying that the commission holds closed door
hearings of cases.
The
department's website http://www.gsic.goa.gov.in/ is not user friendly
especially when it comes to sourcing judgements.
Tendolkar
says the issue has been taken up with the InfoTech Corporation that will be
redesigning the site. Information on the website is outdated. Minutes of
meetings haven't been uploaded after 2007, the last annual report uploaded is
that of 2014 and information under section 4 is also outdated.
Under section
4 (1) - which relates to proactive disclosure- of the RTI Act, every public
authority has the obligation of publishing the powers and duties of its
officers, the monthly remuneration received by each, the budget allocated and a
directory of its officers and employers among other details. The lack of staff,
he says has prevented the commission from uploading this information.
As far as
implementation of proactive disclosure under section 4 (1) regarding other
departments is concerned, Tendolkar says a case is pending with the commission
which has referred the matter to the department of information and publicity.
"It is up to each department to prepare reports and upload this on their
websites. If they don't do it we have to implement it," he says.
.JPG)
.JPG)
