SOUMEN BHATTACHARJEE
The state information commission awarded the first ‘penalty’, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the cooperation department for failing to gather a piece of information for a petitioner, within the stipulated time.
Chief information commissioner Arun Bhattacharya asked the cooperation department to pay a token amount as compensation for harassing the petitioner.
“We have instructed the cooperation department to pay Rs 1,000 as compensation for harassing Saroj Khettry, the petitioner, as the department could not provide him with the information in the stipulated time,” stated Arun Bhattacharya, chief information commissioner of the state.
Khettry, 74, had sought a copy of the legal opinion that the department of co-operation had taken concerning the allotment of his flat on Jhowtala Road.
His quest dates back to the late 1970s, when he decided to leave his flat by resigning from the cooperative society, near Purna cinema in Bhowanipore.
He had paid Rs 4.47 lakh for the 850-sq-ft flat. Khettry vacated the flat as he was told that the booking amount would be returned.
“The promoter and the society did not return the money and even handed over the flat to someone else. Since then, I have been trying in vain to know the name of the owner of the flat,” said Khettry.
After running from pillar to post for years, Khettry’s plea was first heard in October last year, when he was assured that the owner’s name would be revealed to him.
“Initially, the principal information officer told me in a letter that his department has the legal document. But later, his department officials said the document had gone missing,” said Khettry.
On April 3, Khettry’s appeal was heard by the commission, where the chief information commissioner ruled out that “misplacing the document cannot be an excuse for not furnishing a piece of information”.
The commissioner ruled that “the penalty was for the entire department, including principal information officer H.P. Roy”.
He added that only the principal information officer should not be blamed for the matter as the entire department had ignored Khettry’s plea and harassed him.
Published in The Telegraph, 28 April 2007
First penalty for RTI Act violation
CIC slaps fine on Cooperative dept SPIO for failing to furnish information
Subhendu Ray
Kolkata, April 27: The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has penalised the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the Cooperative department for allegedly violating the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This is the first case in West Bengal wherein such an action has been taken under the RTI Act. According to the order issued by the CIC, the SPIO has to submit within 30 days a fine of Rs 1,000 before the one-man commission.
Acting on a complaint filed by one Saroj Kumar Khetri that he was not provided with the piece of information he had sought eight months ago, CIC Arun Kumar Bhattacharya penalised the department under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005.
The complainant said he had purchased a flat at Jhowtala Road in 1973 but the same was later issued to someone else. “My membership in the society was not disclosed in the society audit. I appealed to our cooperative society’s registrar to take action against the board members of the society, but he did not pay any heed,” Khetri said.
He filed a writ petition in the High Court, which ordered the authorities to dispose of his representation in accordance with law.
The secretary of the Cooperative department had sought legal advice from the department’s legal adviser in connection with the writ petition filed by Khetri.
“On June 16 last year, I sent an application to the department requesting for a copy of the legal advice. During the hearing before the Information Commission, the SPIO, HP Roy, had promised to give me the copy within 10 days,” Khetri said.
He was, however, given a copy of the legal opinion in a separate case instead.
“I then moved the Information Commission to get the response of the SPIO,” Khetri said. The commission then seized the file, examined it and penalised the department.
Roy, the SPIO who is also the joint secretary of the department, admitted that it was a gross mistake on their part. “A wrong legal advice document was given to him (Khetri) by mistake. The actual document was not in the file,” he said.
Sabir Ahmed, programme coordinator of The Calcutta Samaritans, a city-based NGO that has been working towards proper implementation of the RTI Act in the state, said applicants in West Bengal hardly ever got a response from the agencies concerned.
“By imposing a penalty this time, the commission has set an example and we appreciate this gesture,” said Ahmed.
Published in Kolkata Newsline, Indian Express, 28 April 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment