RTI ACT TO THE RESCUE
'Info officer is service provider'
Hetal Vyas | TNN
Bangalore: In an order of farreaching consequences, a city consumer court has ruled that a government employee working as a public information officer (PIO) is also a "service provider".
Hearing a complaint filed by a 62-year-old Halasuru resident, the 2nd additional district consumer disputes redressal forum, Seshadripuram, directed PIO and BBMP assistant executive engineer Bhagavan to pay Rs2,000 to the complainant for failing to provide him information sought under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. A bench of H V Ramachandra Rao and Balakrishna V Masali also directed the PIO to provide the information sought by G Gajendra, a resident of Purushottam Road, Halasuru within 45 days. Gajendra had, in July last, sought information on asphalting of Purushottam Road, Halasuru between January 1, 2000 and July 28, 2011. He had also sought the road history of the ward and documents pertaining to permission granted for road cutting to lay underground drainages and Cauvery water pipeline by BWSSB in this area.
The complainant told the court that the mandatory period
for furnishing the requisite information under the RTI Act was 30 days. However, the PIO remained silent despite receiving the application, making it tantamount to gross deficiency of service. Gajendra had sought a compensation of Rs5,000 from the court. "The complainant had sought information under the RTI Act, which was not supplied to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the PIO," the court ruled. It said that the PIO was dutybound to provide the required information to Gajendra because the latter had paid the fee under the RTI Act.
for furnishing the requisite information under the RTI Act was 30 days. However, the PIO remained silent despite receiving the application, making it tantamount to gross deficiency of service. Gajendra had sought a compensation of Rs5,000 from the court. "The complainant had sought information under the RTI Act, which was not supplied to the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the PIO," the court ruled. It said that the PIO was dutybound to provide the required information to Gajendra because the latter had paid the fee under the RTI Act.
In his defence, the PIO argued that the said information came under the jurisdiction of Shivajinagar division office and denied any deficiency in service on his part. Not buying the officer's argument, the court ruled that it was the PIO's duty to send the required information to the complainant's address. "This was not done by the officer. Thus, there has been gross deficiency of service on the part of the PIO," said the judges. "The complainant had availed of the services under the RTI Act by paying a fee. He had sought information under the RTI Act, which was not supplied. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the PIO," said the Second additional district consumer disputes redressal forum.
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment