The Indian Express: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
Order was given to the PIO, but that officer has not done the affidavit, says Gujarat State Information Commission
The Gujarat State
Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on a Mamlatdar
from Dhanera tehsil of Banaskantha district for allegedly not taking
appropriate action in providing the information sought by an RTI applicant and
misleading the Commission.
State Information Commissioner Bharat Ganatra passed an order on May 11 while acting on a complaint filed by one Indra Tuvar, a resident of Dhanera town in Banaskantha district, in connection with an application moved by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The Mamlatdar, J R Mehta, was the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the RTI Act at the relevant time.
As per the case details, Tuvar had sought documents related to certain revenue entries concerning a land parcel in Dhanera in 2025. As he did not get the information sought after filing the first appeal since it was reportedly ‘unavailable’, he moved a second appeal before the Commission. Acting on that appeal, the Commission had on August 26, 2025, passed an order directing the PIO to once again search for the information sought by Tuvar and provide it to him free of cost. If it is still not found, then prepare an affidavit on the stamp paper of Rs 300 and send it to the latter within 15 days, the Commission directed the PIO.
Speaking with The Indian Express, Tuvar said that after the order from the Commission, he did not get information within the stipulated time. He moved another application before the Mamlatdar seeking information on the action taken by her following the order of the Commission.
“I got a reply that a team was formed to search the information and that it was not found. However, I was not given an affidavit then. I lodged a complaint with the Commission seeking action against the Mamlatdar. The complaint was kept for hearing by the Commission and before that I got a call from the office of the Mamlatdar and a talati (revenue clerk) gave an affidavit to me (stating that the information sought could not be found by a team appointed for the purpose). The affidavit was signed by the talati, not the Mamlatdar,” said Tuvar.
Subsequently, during the hearing of Tuvar’s complaint, the affidavit was placed before the Commission even as the Talati, K T Pansal, virtually appeared on behalf of the Mamlatdar.
Taking note of this, the Commission recorded in its order, “…the affidavit has been done by K T Pansal, Kasba Talati (Dhanera). It means, the order was given to the PIO (Mamlatdar) with reference to the application…but that officer has not done the affidavit and this fact comes out from the records.”
“This act of the PIO and Mamlatdar, on the basis of the records, seems to be misleading the Commission. And negligence of the PIO (Mamlatdar) is established that she did not take appropriate action on the complainant’s application,” the Commission said in its order.
Eventually, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Mehta and directed that the amount be paid by her from her own purse within one month of the order.
When enquired, Mehta said she has already deposited the fine amount.
Order was given to the PIO, but that officer has not done the affidavit, says Gujarat State Information Commission
 |
Tuvar had sought documents
related to certain revenue entries concerning a land parcel in Dhanera in 2025.
(Representational image/AI generated) |
State Information Commissioner Bharat Ganatra passed an order on May 11 while acting on a complaint filed by one Indra Tuvar, a resident of Dhanera town in Banaskantha district, in connection with an application moved by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The Mamlatdar, J R Mehta, was the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the RTI Act at the relevant time.
As per the case details, Tuvar had sought documents related to certain revenue entries concerning a land parcel in Dhanera in 2025. As he did not get the information sought after filing the first appeal since it was reportedly ‘unavailable’, he moved a second appeal before the Commission. Acting on that appeal, the Commission had on August 26, 2025, passed an order directing the PIO to once again search for the information sought by Tuvar and provide it to him free of cost. If it is still not found, then prepare an affidavit on the stamp paper of Rs 300 and send it to the latter within 15 days, the Commission directed the PIO.
Speaking with The Indian Express, Tuvar said that after the order from the Commission, he did not get information within the stipulated time. He moved another application before the Mamlatdar seeking information on the action taken by her following the order of the Commission.
“I got a reply that a team was formed to search the information and that it was not found. However, I was not given an affidavit then. I lodged a complaint with the Commission seeking action against the Mamlatdar. The complaint was kept for hearing by the Commission and before that I got a call from the office of the Mamlatdar and a talati (revenue clerk) gave an affidavit to me (stating that the information sought could not be found by a team appointed for the purpose). The affidavit was signed by the talati, not the Mamlatdar,” said Tuvar.
Subsequently, during the hearing of Tuvar’s complaint, the affidavit was placed before the Commission even as the Talati, K T Pansal, virtually appeared on behalf of the Mamlatdar.
Taking note of this, the Commission recorded in its order, “…the affidavit has been done by K T Pansal, Kasba Talati (Dhanera). It means, the order was given to the PIO (Mamlatdar) with reference to the application…but that officer has not done the affidavit and this fact comes out from the records.”
“This act of the PIO and Mamlatdar, on the basis of the records, seems to be misleading the Commission. And negligence of the PIO (Mamlatdar) is established that she did not take appropriate action on the complainant’s application,” the Commission said in its order.
Eventually, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Mehta and directed that the amount be paid by her from her own purse within one month of the order.
When enquired, Mehta said she has already deposited the fine amount.
.JPG)
.JPG)
