Brief of the Case

Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty submitted a complaint before the State Chief Information Commission on 24.1.2007 stating that he submitted written applications before the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri and deposited Rs. 80/- as application fees for 8 (eight) applications. However, the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri failed to give information within 30 days from the submission of the applications. He also did not inform anything to the applicant regarding the prayer. He also submitted that he verbally prayed to the SPIO several times to furnish information but the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri never responded positively in this matter. The complainant also submitted that he tried to submit the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Dhubri but the officials and staff being completely in dark about the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and refused to accept the appeal. He prayed before the Commission for supplying information as sought for in his applications dated 17.8.2006 and to impose penalties on the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri for willfully neglecting to give information thereby violating the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. He also sought for any other relief which the Commission deemed fit and proper.

The informations sought for by him were as follows:

1. Schemes taken under MP Local Area Development Fund for 4 Dhubri Lok Sabha Constituency.

2. Names of the schemes , sanctioned amounts, total amounts released for execution of the works
(i) copies of the tenders of works
(ii) copies of works order
(iii) total amounts utilized under MP’s LAD funds.

3. Schemes taken under MLAs’ Local Area Development Fund for 21 Mankachar, LAC, 22 South Salmara LAC, 23 Dhubri LAC, 24 Gauripur LAC, 25 Golakganj LAC, 26 Bilasipara West LAC & 27 Bilasipara East LAC for the period from 2001-02 up to 2005-06

4. Name of the schemes , sanctioned amounts, total amounts released for execution of the works
(i) copies of the tenders of works
(ii) copies of works order
(iii) total amounts utilized under MLA’s LAD funds

Submission of the parties

The complainant submitted before the Commission that on 7th February 2007 he received telephonic call from Sri Ranjit Kalita, SPIO of Deputy Commissioner’s Office and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri asking him to meet him in his office. On 8.2.2007 he met him who asked him why he (complainant) lodged an appeal before the State Information Commission instead of submitting the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner’s office, Dhubri. He also wanted copies of his applications dated 17.8.06 which he submitted to the office of the SPIO. The complainant gave copies of the applications. The complainant informed the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri that he had to move to the Commission as he did not receive the information sought for by him nor any intimation from the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri regarding his applications.

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri admitted that there was inordinate delay in furnishing the information but the information had since been collected and his office was ready to send it to the complainant. He also confirmed that all the applications were misplaced in his office and he collected information after getting the copies of the applications from the complainant on 8.2.2007.

The Commission was also in receipt of two letters by fax on 20.2.2007 where the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri stated that the complainant Sri Dilip Kr. Chakraborty should have placed the matter before him and instead he came to the Commission and filed an appeal. In the letter addressed to the complainant, the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office also took the same view that the complainant should have placed his grievances before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and he should not have come before the State Information Commission.

Decision of the Commission

The contention of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri as well as the SPIO of the Deputy Commissioner’s office Dhubri that the complainant should not have come before the Commission but should have preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri is totally wrong and it showed their ignorance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. Under section 18 (c) of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission has the obligation and duty to receive and enquire into a complaint from any person who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act. The Commission found that the SPIO of DC’s office Dhubri received the applications on 17.8.06 in his office and as per the provision of Section 7 (1) of the Act, he was to furnish the information to the complainant by 16.9.06. But till date he had not furnished the information; rather he got the applications misplaced in his office. The Commission could not allow such a state of affairs to continue in the DC’s office, Dhubri. The Commission was of the opinion that Shri Ranjit Kalita, ACS, SPIO and the Addl. DC, Dhubri should be penalized for the deliberate delay caused by him in this regard. The Commission, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20 (1) first provision of the RTI Act did, hereby, order that a notice be issued to Shri Ranjit Kalita, ACS, SPIO and Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to show cause why he should not be imposed a penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day till the information was furnished to the complainant, the total amount of penalty not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-.

He should show cause within 14.3.07 by appearing before the Commission in person. The complainant was however not required to attend.

Fix 13.3.07 for hearing of the show cause at 1100 hours in presence of the SPIO.