The Hindu: Chennai: Tuesday, 10 October 2023.
Panel calls for explanation from officials as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for not furnishing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated time frame
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has sent notice to two senior IPS officers in the State calling for explanation why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for not furnishing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated time frame.
The case pertains to a petition filed by Manigandan of Ennore here seeking details of the FIRs registered under certain provisions of the Madras City Police Act, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code on June 25, 2016 and August 22, 2016 in Ennore police station. He sent the requisition to the Public Information Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram District, Chennai Police on March 30, 2022.
With no response forthcoming, the petitioner filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority/Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai Police on April 30, 2022. After there was no reply from the FAA, he moved the second appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission for relief on June 1, 2022.
Non-compliance
Acting on the petition, the Commission sent a notice to the PIO on July 4, 2022 instructing him to furnish the information called for by Mr. Manigandan. However, the petitioner came back to the Commission saying that the PIO had failed to furnish the information even after the notice.
The Commission summoned the PIO/DCP, Madhavaram, to appear in the inquiry.
The petitioner/appellant is present for today’s enquiry. However the DCP Kolathur S. Sakthivel appeared in the hearing and stated that the DCP, Madhavaram, to whom summon was sent by the Commission was changed and was now DCP, Kolathur, and hence he was present. He further submitted that he had no knowledge about the RTI petition.
After hearing both sides and perusing the documents placed on record, Chief Information Commissioner Md. Shakeel Akhter said the RTI petition was sent by registered post addressed to the DCP, Madhavaram. The first appeal was sent to the JCP, North Zone, Chennai. Records revealed that despite the receipt of the petitions, both the officials had not furnished the information to the petitioner.
Stipulated time limit
Going by the Act, the PIO shall furnish the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the petition and the First Appellate Authority shall furnish the Information within the maximum period of 45 days. But, in this case, both the officials had failed to furnish the information to the petitioner within the maximum time limit stipulated under the Act and hence they were liable to be proceeded under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Shakeel ordered notice to be sent to the then PIO/DCP J. Mahesh, presently, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Internal Security, Chennai, and the then FAA/JCP, North Zone, R.V. Ramya Bharathi, presently DIG, Madurai Range, both direct IPS officers, calling for an explanation as to why action should not be taken against them for not furnishing the information to the petitioner within the stipulated period as per the Act.
The CIC directed the registry to send notice to the present PIO/DCP directing him to go through the petition and furnish correct and complete information to the petitioner within seven days and report compliance to the Commission.
Panel calls for explanation from officials as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for not furnishing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated time frame
The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has sent notice to two senior IPS officers in the State calling for explanation why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for not furnishing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated time frame.
The case pertains to a petition filed by Manigandan of Ennore here seeking details of the FIRs registered under certain provisions of the Madras City Police Act, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code on June 25, 2016 and August 22, 2016 in Ennore police station. He sent the requisition to the Public Information Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram District, Chennai Police on March 30, 2022.
With no response forthcoming, the petitioner filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority/Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai Police on April 30, 2022. After there was no reply from the FAA, he moved the second appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission for relief on June 1, 2022.
Non-compliance
Acting on the petition, the Commission sent a notice to the PIO on July 4, 2022 instructing him to furnish the information called for by Mr. Manigandan. However, the petitioner came back to the Commission saying that the PIO had failed to furnish the information even after the notice.
The Commission summoned the PIO/DCP, Madhavaram, to appear in the inquiry.
The petitioner/appellant is present for today’s enquiry. However the DCP Kolathur S. Sakthivel appeared in the hearing and stated that the DCP, Madhavaram, to whom summon was sent by the Commission was changed and was now DCP, Kolathur, and hence he was present. He further submitted that he had no knowledge about the RTI petition.
After hearing both sides and perusing the documents placed on record, Chief Information Commissioner Md. Shakeel Akhter said the RTI petition was sent by registered post addressed to the DCP, Madhavaram. The first appeal was sent to the JCP, North Zone, Chennai. Records revealed that despite the receipt of the petitions, both the officials had not furnished the information to the petitioner.
Stipulated time limit
Going by the Act, the PIO shall furnish the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the petition and the First Appellate Authority shall furnish the Information within the maximum period of 45 days. But, in this case, both the officials had failed to furnish the information to the petitioner within the maximum time limit stipulated under the Act and hence they were liable to be proceeded under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Shakeel ordered notice to be sent to the then PIO/DCP J. Mahesh, presently, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Internal Security, Chennai, and the then FAA/JCP, North Zone, R.V. Ramya Bharathi, presently DIG, Madurai Range, both direct IPS officers, calling for an explanation as to why action should not be taken against them for not furnishing the information to the petitioner within the stipulated period as per the Act.
The CIC directed the registry to send notice to the present PIO/DCP directing him to go through the petition and furnish correct and complete information to the petitioner within seven days and report compliance to the Commission.
.JPG)
.JPG)
