The complainant sent two separate petitions to the Public Information Officer of Guwahati Municipal Corporation on 3.7.2006 in two separate covers through courier service. Both the covers were returned undelivered to the petitioner on the ground that there was no such Officer in GMC. The petitioner thereafter lodged a complaint to the Commission through a petition dated 26.7.2006. On receipt of the petition the Commission decided to inquire into the complaint under section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly notices were issued to the GMC Commissioner / PIO and the petitioner to be present with their relevant documents in the Commission's office on 17.8.2006 at 11.30 hours.

The PIO of the GMC Sri Parag Mahanta, ACS, represented the GMC and the petitioner along with her two friends came to put forth their views.

The PIO of the GMC explained that the covers were not returned by him and he was not aware of it. On being asked whether there were arrangements for receiving applications from the public on the RTI Act in the GMC main office and in all the branches of GMC in the city he replied in the negative. It was obviously a case of failure on the part of the GMC to make appropriate arrangements for receiving the petitions from the public under the RTI Act.

The petitions relate to information regarding cleaning of drains within the Corporation limit and construction and repair of roads at Lachit Nagar by the GMC. The PIO of the GMC came prepared with the replies to the issues raised in the petitions and the same were handed over to the petitioner during the hearing. The petitioner was asked whether she was satisfied with the replies and she replied in the affirmative. The Commission however mentioned that she should go through the replies furnished by the PIO, GMC and if any further information / clarification are required she should immediately bring it to the notice of the PIO, GMC who will furnish additional information.

Decision of the Commission

The Commission was unhappy to find that the GMC has not taken action to fulfill its obligation to the public as mandated under section 4 of the RTI Act. Even a simple notice board has not been put up in any of the GMC offices informing the public about the PIO or to whom they should submit their applications for information. It was also found that GMC collected unauthorizely a fee of Rs. 5/- from an applicant namely Ms. Alpana Devi Choudhury on 19 July 2006, who is present here, when she personally submitted an application under the RTI Act.

The Commission gives the following directions to the GMC for immediate compliance:

1. to designate APIOs under section 5 (2) of the RTI Act 2005 in order to facilitate submission of requests by the public in all branches of GMC,
2. to prominertly display the names of PI Os and APIOs in all the offices of the GMC,
3. As the PIO and APIOs may not be available to receive the petitions from the public all the time, to open RTI counters in all the offices of the GMC to accept the petitions from public and to help them out in submitting the petitions etc. as required under section 6 (1) ,
4. to transfer misdirected petitions to the appropriate authorities under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005,
5. to refund Rs. 5/- collected unauthorisedly from the petitioner Ms. Alpana Devi Choudhury, and
6. to sensitise the staff of GMC on issues relating to RTI Act / Rules.

These directions will be complied with within 7 days by the GMC.
The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Commission again if she is not satisfied with the response/ action taken by the GMC as directed herein.