Details of Penalties imposed by the GSIC:
In 6 cases, Penalty is imposed on the Public information officers. The detailes orders are the GSIC web site:http://egov.nic.goa.in/rtipublic/sic.aspx
1.Comp 10/2006
An amount of Rs 4250 was imposed on the Chief officer of Mapuca Muncipal Council
2.Complaint 12/2006
Rs 2500 penalty is imposed on the Asst Registrar of Cooperative societies
3.Cpmplaint 27/2006
Rs 2500 penalty is imposed on the chief officer of Bicholim Muncipal council
4.Complaint 31 of 2006
Rs 2500 penalty is imposed on the Asst Director of Transport, Margao.
5. Appeal 47/2006
Rs 5000 penalty is imposed on Asst Commissioner of Excise.
6.Appeal 32/2006
Rs 5000 penalty is imposed on the Vp Secretary, Anjuna.
In the following cases, compensation is awarded to the citizens for the harrassment caused to them.
1. Com 31 of 2006
Directorate of Transport. Rs 1000 awarded to Edwin Martins.
2.Com 29/2006
The Director of Information & Publicity was directed to compensate Rs 1000 . Besides, Government requested to initiate disciplinary action against him.
3. Com 38/2006
The PWD was directed to compensate Rs 1000 to a citizen.
4.Appeal 9/2006
The police dept was directed to pay Rs 1000 to a citizen
5.Appeal 35/2006
The director of Sports was asked to pay Rs 1000 to a citizen
In the following cases show cause notices were issued for initiating penalty proceedings.
1. Appeal 49/2006
The commissioner, corporation of Panaji was issued a SCN. Hearing to be held
2.Appeal 43/2006
The Town Planner, Margao issued SCN. To be decided.
3. Appeal 5/2006
The principal, Nirmala Institute of Education was issued SCN for penalty. However, The High Court of Bomabay, Panaji bench has stayed further proceedings.
(A Venkataratnam)
Thursday, February 01, 2007
AUTONOMY FOR THE GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION! WHAT IS THAT?
Working environment of the goa state information commission
The following table gives the filing & disposal of cases in the Goa state Information Commission(GSIC):
COMPLAINTS APPEALS
MONTH
O.B.
FILED
DISPOSAL
C.B.
O.B.
FILED
DISPOSAL
C.B.
Upto June,0June,06
Nil
12
11
1
Nil
8
8
0
July
1
17
17
1`
0
12
12
0
Aug
1
1
0
2
0
8
8
0
Sep
2
7
7
2
0
5
5
0
Oct
2
1
1
2
0
7
6
1
Nov
2
0
0
2
1
8
2
7
Dec
2
6
0
8
7
13
1
19
Jan07
8
4
5
7
19
17
15
21
Total
48
41
7
78
57
21
Complaints Appeals
More than 3 months old-------------- 1 1 More than 1 month old----------------4 17 less than I month old-------------------2 3
One complaint is kept pending to monitor periodically, the compliance of the commission’s order regarding the non compliance of suo moto disclosures by the public authorities in GOA.
In all pending matters, the dates of hearing are fixed.
The average time taken for disposal of each case is less than 2 months..
The facilities provided by the state government for effective implementation of the RTI Act.
The chief secretary to GOA GOVT wrote to the chief info commissioner (CIC) on 17th Jan 07 that the Govt will extend all cooperation to the GSIC to implement the RTI Act. He promised to give sufficient accommodation, vehicles for the GSIC, &funds. However, the position at the end of Jan 07 is as follows:
STAFF
As per the provisions of the Sn 16(6) of the Act, the state govt should provide necessary staff . It mandates the govt
(i) to provide the staff to the CIC & SIC and not to the commission:
(ii) The requirement is assessed by the commissioners & not the Govt;
(iii) The staff asked for has to be given
The only power given to the govt is to frame rules governing the service conditions of the staff.
The govt has sanctioned 12 posts for the commission in March 2006, filled 2 posts in March, 06, 8 posts in Dec 06. The secretary was filled on additional charge basis in Dec 06. One post is still vacant. All these posts are assessed by the Govt itself. It does not take into consideration the personal staff of minimum of one steno and one asst and one peon for each of the 2 commissioners. In addition, it did not sanction the registrar for the court work, accountant for the accounts work. Hence the GSIC requested for the creation & filling of 9 posts. There is no response from the Govt.
AUTONOMY
The staff rules were framed by the Govt in Nov 06, not giving any freedom to the GSIC to recruit a single official. The GSIC sent draft rules based on the rules framed for the staff of GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (GPSC), another autonomous institution . Thus, the Govt has not given the autonomy to GSIC though a specific provision is made under Sn 15(4) of the RTI Act.
FUNDS:
Though Rs 24 lakhs were voted by the legislature in July, 06 for the GSIC, the funds were operated by the Director of Information till Jan 16 th 07. This is one and half months after the secretary was appointed on part time basis. This has resulted in the commission dependant on the Director of Information for its salary of officials and the office stationary. In fact, till August, 2006 even the postage was not given for sending notices to the parties. Only now, that is, from the last week of Jan 07, a few bills are being paid. Even now, the TA Bills, medical bills are not paid. Telephones were disconnected for non payment of bills.
OFFICE ACCOMODATION
As against the requirement of office space of 300 sq meters, the GSIC was provided aroubd 75 sq meters , which is not suuficient even for the seating accomadation of staff, not to speak of the advocates, govt officers and citizens attending the court hearings. It is a pity to see them hanging around in the corridors of the office. This has been reported in the local press, but the government is unmoved. This is the environment in which the commission is functioning.
((A Venkataratnam)
The following table gives the filing & disposal of cases in the Goa state Information Commission(GSIC):
COMPLAINTS APPEALS
MONTH
O.B.
FILED
DISPOSAL
C.B.
O.B.
FILED
DISPOSAL
C.B.
Upto June,0June,06
Nil
12
11
1
Nil
8
8
0
July
1
17
17
1`
0
12
12
0
Aug
1
1
0
2
0
8
8
0
Sep
2
7
7
2
0
5
5
0
Oct
2
1
1
2
0
7
6
1
Nov
2
0
0
2
1
8
2
7
Dec
2
6
0
8
7
13
1
19
Jan07
8
4
5
7
19
17
15
21
Total
48
41
7
78
57
21
Complaints Appeals
More than 3 months old-------------- 1 1 More than 1 month old----------------4 17 less than I month old-------------------2 3
One complaint is kept pending to monitor periodically, the compliance of the commission’s order regarding the non compliance of suo moto disclosures by the public authorities in GOA.
In all pending matters, the dates of hearing are fixed.
The average time taken for disposal of each case is less than 2 months..
The facilities provided by the state government for effective implementation of the RTI Act.
The chief secretary to GOA GOVT wrote to the chief info commissioner (CIC) on 17th Jan 07 that the Govt will extend all cooperation to the GSIC to implement the RTI Act. He promised to give sufficient accommodation, vehicles for the GSIC, &funds. However, the position at the end of Jan 07 is as follows:
STAFF
As per the provisions of the Sn 16(6) of the Act, the state govt should provide necessary staff . It mandates the govt
(i) to provide the staff to the CIC & SIC and not to the commission:
(ii) The requirement is assessed by the commissioners & not the Govt;
(iii) The staff asked for has to be given
The only power given to the govt is to frame rules governing the service conditions of the staff.
The govt has sanctioned 12 posts for the commission in March 2006, filled 2 posts in March, 06, 8 posts in Dec 06. The secretary was filled on additional charge basis in Dec 06. One post is still vacant. All these posts are assessed by the Govt itself. It does not take into consideration the personal staff of minimum of one steno and one asst and one peon for each of the 2 commissioners. In addition, it did not sanction the registrar for the court work, accountant for the accounts work. Hence the GSIC requested for the creation & filling of 9 posts. There is no response from the Govt.
AUTONOMY
The staff rules were framed by the Govt in Nov 06, not giving any freedom to the GSIC to recruit a single official. The GSIC sent draft rules based on the rules framed for the staff of GOA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (GPSC), another autonomous institution . Thus, the Govt has not given the autonomy to GSIC though a specific provision is made under Sn 15(4) of the RTI Act.
FUNDS:
Though Rs 24 lakhs were voted by the legislature in July, 06 for the GSIC, the funds were operated by the Director of Information till Jan 16 th 07. This is one and half months after the secretary was appointed on part time basis. This has resulted in the commission dependant on the Director of Information for its salary of officials and the office stationary. In fact, till August, 2006 even the postage was not given for sending notices to the parties. Only now, that is, from the last week of Jan 07, a few bills are being paid. Even now, the TA Bills, medical bills are not paid. Telephones were disconnected for non payment of bills.
OFFICE ACCOMODATION
As against the requirement of office space of 300 sq meters, the GSIC was provided aroubd 75 sq meters , which is not suuficient even for the seating accomadation of staff, not to speak of the advocates, govt officers and citizens attending the court hearings. It is a pity to see them hanging around in the corridors of the office. This has been reported in the local press, but the government is unmoved. This is the environment in which the commission is functioning.
((A Venkataratnam)
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Bright days ahead for Goa state information commission
One and half years after the Right to information Act(RTI Act) has come into force,& one year after the state commission is constituted, finally bright days are ahead for the commission. The commission, last week has received positive indications that the govt of goa is willing to take action to provide the essential requirements of adequate office space, minimum staff and minimum funds.
Office space
After functioning from my residence for 2 months of April and May, 2006, the commission was provided temporary shelter of 79 sq mtrs spanning 2 rooms. The office does not have sufficient place for the citizens, advocates , Govt officers, besides office staff do not have sufficient place to even move around, not to speak of comfortable seating. It is a pity to look at them hanging around in the verandah of the Shrama shakti Bhavan in the mornings at the time of court hearings. As far back as 17-04-06, I have submitted a requirement of 300 sq mts, which is now said to be under active consideration of the govt.
Staff:
Finally, a secretary is appointed for the commission on part time basis since December. After functioning with one under secretary and one peon, it is a welcome relief for the commission to receive 8 more employees from mid December. But, the problem of seating arrangements has further worsened. Officials are playing musical chairs, waiting for some body to vacate a chair.
It is a different matter that all of them were recruited by the Info dept and the Commission does not have any say in the appointment of any of its staff and they were recruited well before the framing of staff recruitment rules in November. Still, there are no personal staff allotted to the Chief commissioner and the info commissioner,
though the RTI Act gives them the status of a supreme court judge and the state chief secretary.
Funds:
The Govt gave Rs 8 lakhs for the commission initially in May and latter voted 24 lakhs in the budget passed on 31st July. However, the money was placed at the disposal of the commission, on 13th Dec. Prior to that, the info director was spending the money on our behalf. We had to go with our requests with appropriate expression. Not that we can spend the money now on our own. The govt has given the powers to “draw and disburse” only on the 16th Jan.07.
Autonomy:
So, it is the same Dir who appoints our staff, who draws and disburses our salary(read bread) and gives us our stationery. Did you say that the Info Comm is autonomous within the meaning of Sn 15(4) of the RTI Act.? The govt perhaps thinks that this is the autonomy.
There is, however, bright light at the end of the tunnel. The length of the tunnel is long and inside the tunnel it is dark. Spring is not far in the coming.
Bye for now
(A Venkataratnam)
One and half years after the Right to information Act(RTI Act) has come into force,& one year after the state commission is constituted, finally bright days are ahead for the commission. The commission, last week has received positive indications that the govt of goa is willing to take action to provide the essential requirements of adequate office space, minimum staff and minimum funds.
Office space
After functioning from my residence for 2 months of April and May, 2006, the commission was provided temporary shelter of 79 sq mtrs spanning 2 rooms. The office does not have sufficient place for the citizens, advocates , Govt officers, besides office staff do not have sufficient place to even move around, not to speak of comfortable seating. It is a pity to look at them hanging around in the verandah of the Shrama shakti Bhavan in the mornings at the time of court hearings. As far back as 17-04-06, I have submitted a requirement of 300 sq mts, which is now said to be under active consideration of the govt.
Staff:
Finally, a secretary is appointed for the commission on part time basis since December. After functioning with one under secretary and one peon, it is a welcome relief for the commission to receive 8 more employees from mid December. But, the problem of seating arrangements has further worsened. Officials are playing musical chairs, waiting for some body to vacate a chair.
It is a different matter that all of them were recruited by the Info dept and the Commission does not have any say in the appointment of any of its staff and they were recruited well before the framing of staff recruitment rules in November. Still, there are no personal staff allotted to the Chief commissioner and the info commissioner,
though the RTI Act gives them the status of a supreme court judge and the state chief secretary.
Funds:
The Govt gave Rs 8 lakhs for the commission initially in May and latter voted 24 lakhs in the budget passed on 31st July. However, the money was placed at the disposal of the commission, on 13th Dec. Prior to that, the info director was spending the money on our behalf. We had to go with our requests with appropriate expression. Not that we can spend the money now on our own. The govt has given the powers to “draw and disburse” only on the 16th Jan.07.
Autonomy:
So, it is the same Dir who appoints our staff, who draws and disburses our salary(read bread) and gives us our stationery. Did you say that the Info Comm is autonomous within the meaning of Sn 15(4) of the RTI Act.? The govt perhaps thinks that this is the autonomy.
There is, however, bright light at the end of the tunnel. The length of the tunnel is long and inside the tunnel it is dark. Spring is not far in the coming.
Bye for now
(A Venkataratnam)
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wake up call for all Government officers in GOA
PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
The Goa State information commission imposed penalties on a number of officers of Goa government for non-complaince of the RTI Act. The details are as under:
1. Police department imposed compensation of Rs 1000 to be paid to a complainant.
(Case Appeal 9/2006/Police)
2. Mr. S.N. Kotwale, Cief Officer, Mapuca Muncipal Council is imposed a penalty of Rs 250 per day from 16-10-06 till the information is given to the complainant. It could be more than Rs 3500. Compensation of 2000 payable by the muncipal council.
(Case Comp 10A/MMC)
3. Penalty of Rs 2500 imposed on Mr. Shetye Asst Registrar of coop societies, Panaji
(Case Comp 12A/Coop)
4. Penalty of Rs 2500 imposed on Mr Afonso, Asst Director of Transport, Margao.&
compensation of Rs 1000 by the dept.
(Case Comp31/ADT(S))
5. Compensation of Rs 1000 payable by Mr Menin Peres, Director of Information &Publicity. Disciplinary Action is recommended)
In Progress
1.SCN for penalty against Nirmala Institute OF EDUCATON stayed by the High Court.
(Case Appl 5/ NIE)
2.SCN against Mr. Anil Parulekar, SSW, PWD issued for Penalty.
3.SCN against Mr Bykod. Town Planner, Margao issued for penalty.
4.SCN against C.O. Bcholim mucipal council issued.
All cases are on the web site egov.goa.nic.in/rtipublic/sic.aspx
(A Venkataratnam)
The Goa State information commission imposed penalties on a number of officers of Goa government for non-complaince of the RTI Act. The details are as under:
1. Police department imposed compensation of Rs 1000 to be paid to a complainant.
(Case Appeal 9/2006/Police)
2. Mr. S.N. Kotwale, Cief Officer, Mapuca Muncipal Council is imposed a penalty of Rs 250 per day from 16-10-06 till the information is given to the complainant. It could be more than Rs 3500. Compensation of 2000 payable by the muncipal council.
(Case Comp 10A/MMC)
3. Penalty of Rs 2500 imposed on Mr. Shetye Asst Registrar of coop societies, Panaji
(Case Comp 12A/Coop)
4. Penalty of Rs 2500 imposed on Mr Afonso, Asst Director of Transport, Margao.&
compensation of Rs 1000 by the dept.
(Case Comp31/ADT(S))
5. Compensation of Rs 1000 payable by Mr Menin Peres, Director of Information &Publicity. Disciplinary Action is recommended)
In Progress
1.SCN for penalty against Nirmala Institute OF EDUCATON stayed by the High Court.
(Case Appl 5/ NIE)
2.SCN against Mr. Anil Parulekar, SSW, PWD issued for Penalty.
3.SCN against Mr Bykod. Town Planner, Margao issued for penalty.
4.SCN against C.O. Bcholim mucipal council issued.
All cases are on the web site egov.goa.nic.in/rtipublic/sic.aspx
(A Venkataratnam)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Convention at Delhi on RTI
Last time, I published the figures of disposals of cases by the Goa commission before I started for Delhi.
The proceedings at delhi are well documented. Mainly, the Cic was criticised for high pendency and not imposing penalty on all the PIOs where there was delay in furnishing the information. Critics tend to overlook many things outside the control of the cic. For instance, the responsibilities entrusted to the public authorities, the appropriate Govt, are beyond the control of any commission whether at center or GOA. In spite of the clear provisions in the law, no staff, no funds are given making the commission ineffective. The PIOs have to be given due opportunity and then only the penalty can be imposed. In Goa, we have disposed off 51 cases out of 75 filed so far even with bare minimum staff. 46 of them are put on the web. 5 more are yet to be uploaded.
The main problem is lack of training for the PIOs and awareness among the public. I have brought this to the notice of the Hon Chief minister, Goa. Let us hope for the best.
The Goa commission has initiated action against 7 PIOs for penalty, out of which one is before the High Court, one is dropped and others are under hearing. The Bicholim Muncipal council, the police dept, Transport dept are directed to compensate the complainants Rs 1000 each.The penalty notice has to be answered by one RTO, one S.E., 2 chief officers of muncipal council.
We hope that officials will be more prompt in the days to come while replying to the citizens.
(A Venkataratnam)
The proceedings at delhi are well documented. Mainly, the Cic was criticised for high pendency and not imposing penalty on all the PIOs where there was delay in furnishing the information. Critics tend to overlook many things outside the control of the cic. For instance, the responsibilities entrusted to the public authorities, the appropriate Govt, are beyond the control of any commission whether at center or GOA. In spite of the clear provisions in the law, no staff, no funds are given making the commission ineffective. The PIOs have to be given due opportunity and then only the penalty can be imposed. In Goa, we have disposed off 51 cases out of 75 filed so far even with bare minimum staff. 46 of them are put on the web. 5 more are yet to be uploaded.
The main problem is lack of training for the PIOs and awareness among the public. I have brought this to the notice of the Hon Chief minister, Goa. Let us hope for the best.
The Goa commission has initiated action against 7 PIOs for penalty, out of which one is before the High Court, one is dropped and others are under hearing. The Bicholim Muncipal council, the police dept, Transport dept are directed to compensate the complainants Rs 1000 each.The penalty notice has to be answered by one RTO, one S.E., 2 chief officers of muncipal council.
We hope that officials will be more prompt in the days to come while replying to the citizens.
(A Venkataratnam)
Thursday, October 12, 2006
What ails the beauracracy
-What is ailing the beauracracy?
Today is the anniversary of the passing of the Right to information Act by Government of India. The act is hailed as the tool to ensure transperancy, accountability in the administration and a means to access information. But, in practice, is this happening? Here is a review and self assessment of the working of the Goa state information Commission. We would like the citizens to do similar exercise in respect of the other agencies like the Government, the public authorities, local authorities.
Review of the work done by the Goa State Information Commission.
(11th October, 2006)
Today, one year is completed after the Right to Information Act, 2005 has come into force. It is, therefore, proper to review the implementation of the RTI Act in Goa. The Goa State Information Commission was constituted on 2/3/2006, and was provided an office with a skeleton staff of one undere secretary and 4 trainees from 8/6/2006. Since then, the Commission has received and disposed off the complaints and second appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) as follows: -
Upto June 2006
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Total
Complaints
Filed 12
17
01
06
-
36
Disposed 10
11
-
-
-
21
Bal 02
6
01
06
-
15
Appeals
Filed 09
11
06
05
01
32
Disposed 07
6
04
-
-
17
Bal 02
5
02
05
01
15
Total
Filed 21
28
07
11
01
68
Disposed 17
17
04
-
-
38
Bal 04
11
03
11
01
30
From the table, it can be seen that only 4 cases are more than 3 months old. The commission could have reduced this delay if proper staff and funds are provided to it. Even if the existing circumstances continue, we re-dedicate ourselves to reduce delay.
2. Show cause notice issued for penalty: -
Of all the cases brought before the Commission, the Commission has formed an opinion of prime facie delay/malafide denial of information in _4___ cases for which show cases notices were issued in imposing the penalty. Of thes e one case is dropped by the Commission and one is pending as the party has approach the High Court. So the remaining 2 cases are under disposal.
3. Procedure adopted by the Commission: -
In all the cases, both the complainants/appellants and the Public Authorities are given adequate opportunities and only after hearing, orders are passed. All the cases are heard and decided by the bench consisting of CIC and SIC. No cases are heard or disposed off either by a single member or by the officials of the Commission. All the cases are disposed off in favour of citizens. Only when the information was supplied by the PIO’s during the course of the appeal or when the first appeal provision is not exhausted did the Commission reject the appeal/ complaint. Almost all the orders of the Commission are obeyed by the Public Authorities except in one case, which is before the High Court.
4. The difficulties in the implementation of the RTI Act: -
This is not to say that the RTI Act is being implemented very effectively in Goa. The low filing of second appeals before the Commission may not be entirely because the information is being supplied at all levels by the Public Authorities but because of the recourse taken under the Act by few people. But, by and large the Commission is of the opinion that most of the Government Departments have fallen in line with the new norms of disclosure of information rather than holding it back. Nevertheless, the training to the officials and publicity of the benefits of the Act has to be given by the Government. In fact, it is mandated to do so under Section 26 of the Act. However, the State Government is yet to initiate the training programme and the publicity campaign.
The Chief Secretary of the State in an interaction meeting called by the Goa Chapter of Indian Institute of Public Administration 2 months ago assured the delegates as fallows:
(i) Training will be given to all govt functionaries in matters of implementing the provisions of the Act;
(ii) All public authorities will appoint PIOs/ FAAs(First appellate authorities soon;
(iii) Publicity dept would undertake awareness campaign for the public;
(iv) The Act and rules will be published in local language and be made available for nominal prices.
(v) Funds will be placed at the disposal of state information commission soon as the budget provision was made only in July 06.
(vi) None of these assurances were fulfilled. Even the commission was forced to issue 2 orders regarding the appointment and functioning of the PIOs in Amar Naik Vs Director of Information which are available on the web site of the commission.
(vii) The training of officials is more important in the States where the RTI Act was existing prior to the enactment of the Central Act. In Goa, for instance, which is one of the first few States, which enacted RTI Act, the officials as well as members of the public are still under the influence of old State Act. Under the Goa Act of 1997, not only the access to the information is costly being Rs.100/- for each application, the locus standi and the public purpose has to be proved by the applicant. Even though, these requirements are done away with under the Central Act, the State officials have to unlearn the State provisions before they learn the provisions of the Central Act. Similarly, the State Government is mandated under Section 16 of Act to provide adequate staff and funds to the State Commission for its effective functioning. In case of Goa, even 7 months after its constitution, only 4 officials were appointed and no funds were placed to its disposal. The State Government, therefore, have to consider the State Commission’s not as an unnecessary and inconvenient appendage thrust on them but as a partner in the implementation of the Act to
…2/-
- 2 -
achieve its objectives. Even for the salary of the Chief Information Commissioner who is of the rank of a Supreme Court Judge, and the day to day expenditure, the Commission has to knock at the doors of the Directorate of Information thus undermining the independence of the Commission. Inspite of these difficulties the Goa Commission has taken some important and far reaching decisions as mentioned below.
5. Important decision taken by the Commission: -
Appeal No.
Details of the case
Decisions
1
Shri Vijaykumar Bhale
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Food & Drugs, Panaji.
An accused in a criminal case is cannot be denied information on the ground that though he will get it at the time of hearing of the case against him, as long as there are no grounds under Section 8 to deny the information.
3
Ashok Menon
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Panaji.
The service particulars of Government servants are not personal information and are not exempted from disclosure.
5 & 6
Dr. G. C. Pradhan & S. K. Pradhan
Vs.
1. Nirmala Institute of Education, Panaji &
2. Goa University.
No specific notification of appropriate Government is necessary under Section 2 (h) (d) of the Act to bring the aided colleges and the Universities established under a State legislation to be covered under the RTI Act.
7
Under Secretary (Revenue),
Secretariat, Porvorim.
Vs.
Shri V. B. Prabhu Verlekar & another.
The PIO is not an aggrieved party under RTI Act and hence cannot appeal before the Commission against FAA.
11
Pranay Kamat
Vs.
PIO, Police Department
1. PIO cannot delegate his functions to APIO.
2. Cost of Appeal Petition cannot be awarded, as there is no provision.
13
Joao C. Pereira
Vs.
Police Department (H.Q.),
Panaji.
1. APIO cannot reject the request for information.
2. Directions issued to the Public Authority (DGP) to circulate the duties of the APIOs.
3. FAA has to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.
14
C. S. Barreto
Vs.
Mamlatdar of Margao.
1. Merely because compiling of information is difficult, information cannot be denied.
2. Non-payment application fee of Rs.10/- is remediable defect and application cannot be rejected on this ground.
23
Sushant Naik
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Mines, Panaji.
1. Only the documents mentioned in Section 7 (5) can be supplied free of cost after 30 days, if the PIO did not do so in time. Other documents have to be paid for.
2. The information cannot be denied on the plea that the citizen did not meet the PIO on the appointed day.
Today is the anniversary of the passing of the Right to information Act by Government of India. The act is hailed as the tool to ensure transperancy, accountability in the administration and a means to access information. But, in practice, is this happening? Here is a review and self assessment of the working of the Goa state information Commission. We would like the citizens to do similar exercise in respect of the other agencies like the Government, the public authorities, local authorities.
Review of the work done by the Goa State Information Commission.
(11th October, 2006)
Today, one year is completed after the Right to Information Act, 2005 has come into force. It is, therefore, proper to review the implementation of the RTI Act in Goa. The Goa State Information Commission was constituted on 2/3/2006, and was provided an office with a skeleton staff of one undere secretary and 4 trainees from 8/6/2006. Since then, the Commission has received and disposed off the complaints and second appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005) as follows: -
Upto June 2006
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Total
Complaints
Filed 12
17
01
06
-
36
Disposed 10
11
-
-
-
21
Bal 02
6
01
06
-
15
Appeals
Filed 09
11
06
05
01
32
Disposed 07
6
04
-
-
17
Bal 02
5
02
05
01
15
Total
Filed 21
28
07
11
01
68
Disposed 17
17
04
-
-
38
Bal 04
11
03
11
01
30
From the table, it can be seen that only 4 cases are more than 3 months old. The commission could have reduced this delay if proper staff and funds are provided to it. Even if the existing circumstances continue, we re-dedicate ourselves to reduce delay.
2. Show cause notice issued for penalty: -
Of all the cases brought before the Commission, the Commission has formed an opinion of prime facie delay/malafide denial of information in _4___ cases for which show cases notices were issued in imposing the penalty. Of thes e one case is dropped by the Commission and one is pending as the party has approach the High Court. So the remaining 2 cases are under disposal.
3. Procedure adopted by the Commission: -
In all the cases, both the complainants/appellants and the Public Authorities are given adequate opportunities and only after hearing, orders are passed. All the cases are heard and decided by the bench consisting of CIC and SIC. No cases are heard or disposed off either by a single member or by the officials of the Commission. All the cases are disposed off in favour of citizens. Only when the information was supplied by the PIO’s during the course of the appeal or when the first appeal provision is not exhausted did the Commission reject the appeal/ complaint. Almost all the orders of the Commission are obeyed by the Public Authorities except in one case, which is before the High Court.
4. The difficulties in the implementation of the RTI Act: -
This is not to say that the RTI Act is being implemented very effectively in Goa. The low filing of second appeals before the Commission may not be entirely because the information is being supplied at all levels by the Public Authorities but because of the recourse taken under the Act by few people. But, by and large the Commission is of the opinion that most of the Government Departments have fallen in line with the new norms of disclosure of information rather than holding it back. Nevertheless, the training to the officials and publicity of the benefits of the Act has to be given by the Government. In fact, it is mandated to do so under Section 26 of the Act. However, the State Government is yet to initiate the training programme and the publicity campaign.
The Chief Secretary of the State in an interaction meeting called by the Goa Chapter of Indian Institute of Public Administration 2 months ago assured the delegates as fallows:
(i) Training will be given to all govt functionaries in matters of implementing the provisions of the Act;
(ii) All public authorities will appoint PIOs/ FAAs(First appellate authorities soon;
(iii) Publicity dept would undertake awareness campaign for the public;
(iv) The Act and rules will be published in local language and be made available for nominal prices.
(v) Funds will be placed at the disposal of state information commission soon as the budget provision was made only in July 06.
(vi) None of these assurances were fulfilled. Even the commission was forced to issue 2 orders regarding the appointment and functioning of the PIOs in Amar Naik Vs Director of Information which are available on the web site of the commission.
(vii) The training of officials is more important in the States where the RTI Act was existing prior to the enactment of the Central Act. In Goa, for instance, which is one of the first few States, which enacted RTI Act, the officials as well as members of the public are still under the influence of old State Act. Under the Goa Act of 1997, not only the access to the information is costly being Rs.100/- for each application, the locus standi and the public purpose has to be proved by the applicant. Even though, these requirements are done away with under the Central Act, the State officials have to unlearn the State provisions before they learn the provisions of the Central Act. Similarly, the State Government is mandated under Section 16 of Act to provide adequate staff and funds to the State Commission for its effective functioning. In case of Goa, even 7 months after its constitution, only 4 officials were appointed and no funds were placed to its disposal. The State Government, therefore, have to consider the State Commission’s not as an unnecessary and inconvenient appendage thrust on them but as a partner in the implementation of the Act to
…2/-
- 2 -
achieve its objectives. Even for the salary of the Chief Information Commissioner who is of the rank of a Supreme Court Judge, and the day to day expenditure, the Commission has to knock at the doors of the Directorate of Information thus undermining the independence of the Commission. Inspite of these difficulties the Goa Commission has taken some important and far reaching decisions as mentioned below.
5. Important decision taken by the Commission: -
Appeal No.
Details of the case
Decisions
1
Shri Vijaykumar Bhale
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Food & Drugs, Panaji.
An accused in a criminal case is cannot be denied information on the ground that though he will get it at the time of hearing of the case against him, as long as there are no grounds under Section 8 to deny the information.
3
Ashok Menon
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Panaji.
The service particulars of Government servants are not personal information and are not exempted from disclosure.
5 & 6
Dr. G. C. Pradhan & S. K. Pradhan
Vs.
1. Nirmala Institute of Education, Panaji &
2. Goa University.
No specific notification of appropriate Government is necessary under Section 2 (h) (d) of the Act to bring the aided colleges and the Universities established under a State legislation to be covered under the RTI Act.
7
Under Secretary (Revenue),
Secretariat, Porvorim.
Vs.
Shri V. B. Prabhu Verlekar & another.
The PIO is not an aggrieved party under RTI Act and hence cannot appeal before the Commission against FAA.
11
Pranay Kamat
Vs.
PIO, Police Department
1. PIO cannot delegate his functions to APIO.
2. Cost of Appeal Petition cannot be awarded, as there is no provision.
13
Joao C. Pereira
Vs.
Police Department (H.Q.),
Panaji.
1. APIO cannot reject the request for information.
2. Directions issued to the Public Authority (DGP) to circulate the duties of the APIOs.
3. FAA has to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.
14
C. S. Barreto
Vs.
Mamlatdar of Margao.
1. Merely because compiling of information is difficult, information cannot be denied.
2. Non-payment application fee of Rs.10/- is remediable defect and application cannot be rejected on this ground.
23
Sushant Naik
Vs.
PIO, Directorate of Mines, Panaji.
1. Only the documents mentioned in Section 7 (5) can be supplied free of cost after 30 days, if the PIO did not do so in time. Other documents have to be paid for.
2. The information cannot be denied on the plea that the citizen did not meet the PIO on the appointed day.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Goa information commission
So far, the Goa Information commission has disposed off 29 cases , both complaints and appeals included all of which are on the web site http://egov.goa.nic.in/sic.aspx.
The important thing to be noted is that all orders of the commission are complied with, including the latest one by the police dept of goa. It has issued instructions to its staff that the APIOs have no jurisdiction to refuse information. Only one public authority has gone to the high court, which has not yet admitted.
The Goa government has not yet placed funds at the disposal of the commission. Last time , I raised this point in the interaction meeting organised by the Goa chapter of institute of public administration, the chief secretary of goa has expressed his rightful indignation that such matters will take time. Well, 11 months have passed by after the RTI Act has come into force and 6 months passed by after the state commission is constituted. It is for the readers to come to a conclusion whether sufficient time was available for the government to make this order of placing funds for the functioning mof the goa commission.
(A Venkataratnam)
The important thing to be noted is that all orders of the commission are complied with, including the latest one by the police dept of goa. It has issued instructions to its staff that the APIOs have no jurisdiction to refuse information. Only one public authority has gone to the high court, which has not yet admitted.
The Goa government has not yet placed funds at the disposal of the commission. Last time , I raised this point in the interaction meeting organised by the Goa chapter of institute of public administration, the chief secretary of goa has expressed his rightful indignation that such matters will take time. Well, 11 months have passed by after the RTI Act has come into force and 6 months passed by after the state commission is constituted. It is for the readers to come to a conclusion whether sufficient time was available for the government to make this order of placing funds for the functioning mof the goa commission.
(A Venkataratnam)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)