Dated 11-09-2007

Name of the Complainant:
Shri Prasanta Sekhar Deka,
Advocate Gauhati High Court
4/Bye Lane No.5, New Sarania, Guwahati - 3

Name of the Public Authority:
Registrar, Cooperative Societies

The following were present:
1. Sri J.I. Kathar, IAS Registrar, Cooperative Societies
2. Smt Juri Phukan, Addl. Registrar Cooperative Societies
3. Shri H. K. Gayan, Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies & SPIO
4. Shri Prasanta Sekhar Deka

The complaint present. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies & SPIO present.

Brief of the case
On 9.8.07 the Commission heard the complaint lodged by Shri Prasanta Sekhar Deka, Advocate, Gauhati High Court against the SPIO of the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam in presence of Shri J.I.Kathar, Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Shri H.K. Gayan, Dy-Registrar Cooperative Societies Assam cum SPIO and decided as follows:

“The Commission made the following orders requiring the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 19 (8) (a) of the Act to :

(i) furnish the information to the complainant by 11.9.2007,

(ii) conduct enquiry why the petition was not accepted in his office on 16.6.07 and 18.6.07 and submit the enquiry report on the next date of hearing fix pointing the responsibility for refusing to accept the petition,

(iii) make written statement at the time of next hearing why penalty under section 20(1) of the Act should not be imposed on the officers responsible for refusing to accept the application,

(iv) put up signboard in his office prominently showing the names of the SPIOs/ASPIOs and other officers to whom the application under the RTI Act could be submitted along with mode of payment of the application fees,

(v) attend the next hearing along with the officers responsible for refusal of the application and the SPIO”.

The Commission decided to hear the parties on 11.9.07. Hence this hearing.

Submission of the parties
The complainant reiterated that on 16.6.07 and 18.6.07 his clerk went to the office of the Registrar to submit a petition under the RTI Act and on both occasions, the petition was not accepted by anybody. His clerk met Smti Juri Phukan, Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 18.6.07 and gave the petition to her but she refused to accept it. She gave two photostat copies of a format to his clerk. He stated that his clerk, not finding any SPIO or APIO went to her as she was the senior most officer present. But she misbehaved with the clerk and his clerk rang him up informing him of he same.

Shri Kathar, Registrar Cooperative Societies, Assam stated that he held an inquiry into the allegation and found that a gentleman came to the office-chamber of Mrs Juri Phukan, Addl. Registrar Cooperative Societies a few days ago who introduced himself as the clerk of an advocate of the Gauhati High Court. He approached her with harsh words. However, she directed the person to go to the SPIO /APIO stating that only SPIO/APIO could accept RTI applications. She also told him to come back to her if he could not submit the application to the SPIO / APIO but he did not turn up. He stated that before that incident she had accepted may petitions under the RTI Act. On that day also she would have accepted it had he come again to her with the complaint that no one was accepting it in her office but the person never come back. He submitted that he had taken steps to streamline the system of disposal of RTI petitions including putting up of a sign board. He assured the Commission that there would not be any difficulty in future in RTI matters to the public. He informed the Commission that the information sought for as available and collected by the SPIO had already been furnished to the complainant but no charge was realized from him.

The complainant submitted that his clerk did not misbehave with Mrs. Phukan. He also informed that he did not receive all the information sought for by him from the field level officers.

The SPIO submitted that he had collected information from some field level officers and requested them to furnish the information directly to the complainant to avoid delay. The complainant also acknowledged receipt of information from some field officers.

The complainant submitted that as the SPIO did not furnish the information within the stipulated time-limit and as per R.T.I. Act he was entitled to receive information free of charge from the SPIO. However, he left to the judgement of the Hon’ble Commission and if he was required to pay for the information, he was ready to pay.

Observation of the Commission
The Commission observed that there were charges and counter-charges about mis-behaviour and this had happened as the Public Authority did not take any steps to prop up a sign giving the names of the SPIO / APIO and the contact person for receiving R.T.I. applications. Now that the Public Authority, while complying with the direction of the Commission had set up a signboard, such mis-undertaking and fraying of tempers would hopefully be avoided.

The Commission appreciated that the volume and number of documents and information spread over various offices of the State under the control of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam would be large and time consuming in collecting them. Therefore the Commission did not accept the submission made by the complainant that the information should be furnished to him free of cost because of delay. The SPIO could have taken recourse to Section 6 (3) of the Act by transferring the relevant queries to the concerned offices. But the SPIO did right in making efforts to collect the information from various offices in the state in the best interest of providing timely information to the petitioner.

Decision of the Commission
The Commission, on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case directed as follows:

(1) The SPIO of the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam should collect the remaining information and furnish the same to the complainant on realization of cost for furnishing the same. The complainant should pay the cost for the information already furnished to him except for those which had been supplied to him already by the field officer.

(2) The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam should ensure that no harassment whatsoever is caused to any citizen seeking information from his office.

The Commission decided to close the case with the above directions.

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.

CC:
1. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam.
2. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam
3. The Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Assam
4. Shri Prasanta Sekhar Deka, Advocate, Gauhati High Court
5. The DIPR, Dispur, Guwahati.
6. M. D, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan
7. Office file.


Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam