Central Information Commission
Mrs Muthumalai vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 22 July, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000816
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 14th June 2016
Date of decision : 14th June 2016
Date of second hearing : 22nd July 2016
Date of final order : 22nd July 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Muthumalai,
C/o. S. M. Swamy, H. No. 20/3, F.M.C. Road,
Prem Nagar Haddo Post Office,
South Andaman District, Port Blair 744102
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent O/o. the Assistant Commissioner (S),
Port Blair, A & N Islands 744101 Attendance during the hearing on 14.6.2016 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Thomas Verghese, Surveyor and Draftsman was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
Attendance during the hearing on 22.7.2016 The Appellant was present at the NIC studio, Port Blair.
1 On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present at the NIC studio, Port Blair:
i) Ms. Mitali Goel, A.C. (SA) & CPIO
ii) Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Hearing on 14.6.2016
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 24.6.2015 filed by the Appellant, seeking certified copy of revenue records concerning two survey numbers, came up today. The Appellant stated that the information has not been provided to him. It is noted from the records that the Assistant Commissioner, South Andaman advised him on 30.6.2015 to apply to the Tehsildar concerned to obtain the information by paying the prescribed fee. The Deputy Commissioner and FAA, however, directed the APIO / Tehsildar Port Blair to provide the requisite information against payment of the prescribed fee within ten days of the receipt of his (FAA's) order No. 153/RTI/TSD/2015/7720 dated 8.10.2015. However, the information has not been provided to the Appellant. This is another instance of the subordinates of the FAA ignoring his order. In response to our query, the Appellant stated that Shri T. Mohammed, Tehsildar was the APIO, when the FAA issued his order dated 8.10.2015.
2. nd July In view of the foregoing, this matter is adjourned to be heard again on 22 2016 at 10.10 a.m. through videoconferencing. We direct Shri T. Mohammed, former Tehsildar / APIO, Port Blair to be present for the next hearing and show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of subsection (1) of Section 20 of the RTI Act for his 2 failure to provide the information in response to the RTI application dated 24.6.2015 in spite of the FAA's order dated 8.10.2015. Shri Vijay Bidhuri, DC and FAA is directed to ensure that Shri T. Mohammed, former Tehsidlar is present for the hearing on 22.7.2016. The venue for videoconferencing for the appearance of Shri T. Mohammed for the next hearing will be as follows: National Informatic Centre, 1st Floor, 'A' Block, General Pool Office Accommodation Complex (GPO) A Complex, Ranchi Basti (Near Dairy Farm), Port Blair, A & N Islands - 744103 Shri Narasimha Rao, ScientistC & Contact No. 03192232733). Hearing on 22.7.2016
3. The matter came up again today. Ms. Mitali Goel, A.C. (SA) & CPIO stated that the then CPIO responded to the above RTI application on 30.6.2015 and asked the Appellant to apply directly to the Tehsildar concerned or the area Patwari for the certified copy of the record entry and sketch map, required by him, after paying the prescribed fee. She stated that such documents can be obtained by the public by paying the charges prescribed by the Revenue authorities, which amount to Rs. 50/ per entry. Therefore, the Appellant could have obtained the information concerning two entries, required by him, by paying Rs.100/. However, he did not do so and filed an appeal to the FAA, who in his order dated 8.10.2015 directed the APIO /Tehsildar to provide the requisite information in lieu of 3 the requisite fee within ten days of the receipt of the above order. Ms. Mitali Goel also stated that in the interim order dated 14.6.2016, the name of the former Tehsildar and APIO was wrongly mentioned as Shri T. Mohammed. His name is Shri V. Mohammed.
4. The Appellant stated that on receiving the reply dated 30.6.2015 of the CPIO, he wrote to the Tehsildar on 13.7.2015, referring to the CPIO's reply and asking for the documents needed by him. However, he failed to obtain any information and, therefore, pursued his RTI application by filing the appeal dated 7.9.2015 to the FAA. The Appellant stated that he had to resort to the RTI route because he could not get the information through the normal revenue channel. He requested that besides giving directions to the Respondents to provide the information needed by him, action should also be taken for the delay in providing the information to him.
5. On being asked to explain the reasons for not providing the information or contacting the Appellant to deposit the requisite charges, in spite of the FAA's order dated 8.10.2015, Shri V. Mohammed former Tehsildar and APIO submitted his written submissions that have been forwarded to us by Ms. Mitali Goel, CPIO by fax. He has stated that the matter pertains to a period when the Panchayat and Municipal General Elections, 2015 had just ended during September, 2015, prior to which the process of delimitation and other election related work had started during April, 2015. After the 4 election, he was very busy with a large number of revenue cases and other matters that were pending due to the election work. The Appellant sought information which is already in the public domain. Therefore, he asked the concerned dealing clerk to apprise the Appellant that he might collect it from the public domain i.e. the website of the District Administration, South Andaman, "which is already hoisting the Land Record Details on the internet or collect it directly from the concerned area Patwari upon payment of the prescribed fees." Thereafter, neither the Appellant nor the office brought the matter to his notice, which caused the "unintentional" ignoring of the FAA's order. Shri V. Mohammed has also stated that he retired from service on 31.1.2016 and has prayed for closure of the matter.
6. We have considered the submissions of all the parties. Ms. Mitali Goel, AC(SA) and CPIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant within three days of deposit by him of the prescribed revenue department charges of Rs. 50/ per entry. The information should be provided under intimation to the Commission.
7. We have also considered the submissions of Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO. By his own admission, the election work was over in September 2015. He claims that he was thereafter busy clearing the revenue work that had become pending because of elections, when the FAA passed his order dated 8.10.2015. In our view the 5 sanctity of the time limits laid down in the RTI Act or prescribed by the competent authorities, viz. FAA and the CIC, in their orders, would be completely lost, if the CPIOs / APIOs were to take the plea that they were unable to adhere to the timeframe because of pressure of work. Therefore, this argument of Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO is not acceptable to us. Further, he states that the information is in the public domain and could have been obtained by the Appellant by paying the prescribed charges. However, the Appellant explained during the hearing that he had to resort to the RTI route because he failed to get the information through the normal revenue department channels. The Appellant did write to Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO on 13.7.2015, after receiving the CPIO's reply, requesting for the information, but received no reply from him. Nothing has been placed on record to establish that Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO took any action whatsoever on receiving the order dated 8.10.2015 of the FAA. His submission that he asked the dealing clerk to inform the Appellant of the requirements to get the information remains unsubstantiated. In any case, it was up to him as the APIO, ordered by the FAA to provide the information, rather than for a clerk to ensure compliance with the FAA's order. Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO clearly failed to take any action whatsoever on the FAA's order. This resulted in a delay in provision of the information to the Appellant, far in excess of the maximum period, i.e. one hundred days, for which penalty can be imposed under Section 6 20 (1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/ is warranted in this case. However, considering the fact that Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO has since retired from service and is a pensioner and, by virtue of the power vested in us under subsection (1) of Section 20 of the RTI Act, we impose a penalty of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) on Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO. This amount may be deducted in five equal instalments of Rs. 3000/ each from the monthly pension of Shri V. Mohammed, former Tehsildar and APIO, beginning with the pension payable for the month of August, 2016. The CPIO is directed to ensure that these deductions are made and the amount so deducted is remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, , August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
8. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. 7
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar 8