Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 11 November 2022.
We have heard of public information officers (PIOs) being slammed with penalty if they deny or do not provide appropriate information. However, recently, refusing to accept a right to information (RTI) application has landed a PIO, the principal of a school in this case, in a soup, as he has been slammed with Rs25,000 penalty.
In what can be termed as an action to stop the sly tactics of PIOs across the country, who often refuse to accept RTI applications so that they cannot be held accountable for denial of information, the firebrand journalist-turned-information commissioner of Madhya Pradesh (MP), Rahul Singh has ordered this penalty.
The case goes thus: Ramniwas Kushwah, principal of the government higher secondary school in Kharamseda of Satna district, refused to accept an RTI application sent by registered post by RTI applicant Munnalal Patel.
Aggrieved, Mr Patel filed the first appeal (FA) with the Satna district education officer but when this did not yield a result, he filed a second appeal with the information commissioner Mr Singh. In the second appeal hearing held last week, Mr Singh ruled that, “this case be taken up as a complaint and not as appeal for appeal requires RTI application to be received at PIO office. Also, First appeal can be admitted only after 30 days of RTI application being filed. In such a case, the RTI applicant should have directly complained to the commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act.” That is because the RTI application did not exist at all!
During the hearing, the principal claimed that he had no idea who had refused information on his behalf. However, Mr Singh observed that, “there were sufficient evidences against the principal, such as the post office receipt and postman's note ‘recipient refused to receive the post hence returned’ recorded on the envelope that was returned by the PIO.”
Mr Singh asked the principal to produce evidentiary proof such as postman's clarification about no role of principal's office in turning down the RTI application letter. Mr Singh noted that accountability has to be fixed in turning down the RTI application.
Government offices cannot refuse to accept RTI application, ruled Mr Singh, who, in his order, stressed on how, under Section 6 of RTI, all citizens have the right to file RTI applications and if a PIO refuses to accept the application, then he violates this section.
RTI आवेदन की डाक लौटाने पर सतना के शासकीय विद्यालय के प्राचार्य के उपर ₹25000 का जुर्माना लगाया गया है। साक्ष्य के तौर पर RTI आवेदक द्वारा लौटाई गई डाक के लिफाफे पर दर्ज डाकिए की टीप और डाक भेजने की रसीद पेश की गई। — Rahul Singh
We have heard of public information officers (PIOs) being slammed with penalty if they deny or do not provide appropriate information. However, recently, refusing to accept a right to information (RTI) application has landed a PIO, the principal of a school in this case, in a soup, as he has been slammed with Rs25,000 penalty.
In what can be termed as an action to stop the sly tactics of PIOs across the country, who often refuse to accept RTI applications so that they cannot be held accountable for denial of information, the firebrand journalist-turned-information commissioner of Madhya Pradesh (MP), Rahul Singh has ordered this penalty.
The case goes thus: Ramniwas Kushwah, principal of the government higher secondary school in Kharamseda of Satna district, refused to accept an RTI application sent by registered post by RTI applicant Munnalal Patel.
Aggrieved, Mr Patel filed the first appeal (FA) with the Satna district education officer but when this did not yield a result, he filed a second appeal with the information commissioner Mr Singh. In the second appeal hearing held last week, Mr Singh ruled that, “this case be taken up as a complaint and not as appeal for appeal requires RTI application to be received at PIO office. Also, First appeal can be admitted only after 30 days of RTI application being filed. In such a case, the RTI applicant should have directly complained to the commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act.” That is because the RTI application did not exist at all!
During the hearing, the principal claimed that he had no idea who had refused information on his behalf. However, Mr Singh observed that, “there were sufficient evidences against the principal, such as the post office receipt and postman's note ‘recipient refused to receive the post hence returned’ recorded on the envelope that was returned by the PIO.”
Mr Singh asked the principal to produce evidentiary proof such as postman's clarification about no role of principal's office in turning down the RTI application letter. Mr Singh noted that accountability has to be fixed in turning down the RTI application.
Government offices cannot refuse to accept RTI application, ruled Mr Singh, who, in his order, stressed on how, under Section 6 of RTI, all citizens have the right to file RTI applications and if a PIO refuses to accept the application, then he violates this section.
RTI आवेदन की डाक लौटाने पर सतना के शासकीय विद्यालय के प्राचार्य के उपर ₹25000 का जुर्माना लगाया गया है। साक्ष्य के तौर पर RTI आवेदक द्वारा लौटाई गई डाक के लिफाफे पर दर्ज डाकिए की टीप और डाक भेजने की रसीद पेश की गई। — Rahul Singh