PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No. 116/2007

Dated 14-01-2008

Name of the Complainant:
Md. Sattar Ali, Secretary , Bilasipara
West Constituency Unnayan Samittee
Krishnanagar (Bilasipara), Dhubri

Name of the Public Authority / SPIO:
D.C. Dhubri

The following were present
1. Shri G.K. Kalita DC, Dhubri
3. Ali Akbar Miah

The complainant absent. The representative of the complainant present. The D.C. Dhubri present.

Brief of the case
A complaint was submitted by Md. Sattar Ali of Krishnagar (Bilashipara) on 13.4.07 before the Commission to the effect that he received information from the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on eight points mentioned in his petition dated 26.2.07 before the SPIO of DC’s Office, Dhubri. But one information relating to the point 5 on the implementation of road construction with sand gravel from 31 National Highway to house of A. Jalil S.K. at village Rangamati part 1 and whether there was any misappropriation of funds for the said scheme and action taken on the public complaints was not received.

The petition was sent by the Commission to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri for treating this as 1 st appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter on 6.11.07, the petitioner submitted another petition before the Commission to the effect that no action was taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on the petition sent by the Commission. Hence the Commission took up this petition as a complaint under section 18(2) of the said Act.

The information sought for by the complainant vide his first petition were as follows:

  1. What schemes were submitted under MLA Area Development Funds by the MLD of West Bilasipara Constituency for the year 2006-07 (list of the schemes along with amount earmarked may be specified)?
  2. List of construction committee or user groups for implementation of the schemes as well as the names of the executive agency with list of members for all the schemes for the said constituency.
  3. (a) List of construction committee / groups constituted for each scheme.
    (b) Which scheme was given for execution to which Junior Engineer?
  4. Were the schemes submitted as per guidelines?
  5. Was there any public complaint regarding users funds for the scheme sanctioned vide letter No. DVZ.10/2005-06/Part/BLP (W)/10 dated 20.9.2006? What action was taken and to send a copy of inquiry report?
  6. Amounts released against each scheme with dates.
  7. Was there any person from another village enlisted in the users groups? Who was the person and who approved this illegal enlistment?
  8. On what basis a member of another constituency was enlisted as member in the user group / construction company under MLA Area Development Fund?
Out of these points, information relating to point 5 i.e. regarding public allegation relating to the scheme sanctioned vide letter No. DVZ.10/2005-06/Pt/BLP(W)/10 dated 20.9.2006 and action taken was not furnished and hence the complainant submitted this complaint. Hence this case.

Submission of the Parties
The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri submitted that on reference from the Commission, he disposed of the appeal petition on 29.05.07 in presence of the complainant. The D.C stated that he also sent a copy of the inquiry report to the complainant by post but did not inform the complainant about the action taken.

The representative of the complainant stated that the complainant did not receive any copy of the inquiry report nor did the complainant receive any Action Taken report on the allegation. As such the complainant submitted the complaint to the Commission.

Observation of the Commission
The Commission observed that as the D.C. Dhubri as the First Appellate Authority did not inform the Commission about his disposal of the first appeal, the Commission had to take the complaint. The Commission, on perusal of the records produced by the D.C. Dhubri found that a letter was issued to the complainant enclosing a copy of the inquiry report on the public complaint as mentioned at point 5 of the petition of the complainant. But the representative of the complainant informed the Commission that the complainant did not receive the letter of the DC’s office and the copy of the inquiry report. The Commission also found that the Inquiry Officer found irregularity in the executing of the work mentioned at point 5 of the original petition.

The Commission observed that the SPIO should inform the complainant about the action taken in this regard.

Decisions of the Commission
The Commission on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case decided to direct the D.C. Dhubri under section 19(8) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 as follows:
  1. to furnish to the representative of the complainant a copy of the inquiry report immediately after the hearing.
  2. to inform the complainant about the action taken on the matter of irregular execution of the scheme mentioned at point 5 of the petition and as pointed out by the Inquiry Officer.
  3. Compliance of these directions will be reported to the Commission by 30.1.2008.


Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Sd/ (Dr. B K Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.


Authenticated true copy

(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Memo No SIC.116/2007 Dated January 14, 2008

CC:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri
2. Shri Sattar Ali, Bilasipara West Constituency Unnayan Samittee, Krishnanagar (Bilasipara), Dhubri
3. The DIPR, Dispur, Guwahati.
4. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan.
5. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam