Mr. Habibur Rahman of Dispur submitted an application before the Chief Information Commissioner, Assam stating that on 17.7.06 he approached the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M) for some information and Shri J. Lahkar endorsed his application to Shri Barman, Head Assistant of Deputy Commissioner’s Office but Mr. Rahman has not received any information. The application of Mr. Rahman was treated as a complaint under section 18 (2) of RTI Act, 2005 by the Commission and a notice was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) on 8.8.06 asking the designated State Public Information Officer of his office or in his absence the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M) to appear at the Commission office on 7.9.2006 at 11.30 hors with all details / records.

On 7.9.06, Mrs. P. Thousen, Asstt. Public Information Officer in the office of the D.C. Kamrup (Metro) was present The complainant was there. It was, however, found that Mrs. Thousan was not at all conversant with the matter. As such, it became necessary for the Commission to order that the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (M) / Public Information Officer of his office should appear before the commission on this date with all relevant records/ details without fail and explain why he / the PIO was not present for hearing on 7.9.06. They were also to explain to the Commission why penalty under Section 19(1) of the Act should not be imposed on them.

In his application under RTI Act the complainant sought for the following information:

1. The daily progress made on his application so far, i.e. when his application reached which officer, for how long the application was pending with that officer and what he / she did during that period.

2. The names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take action on application and the names of the officials who did not take action

3. Actions proposed to be taken against those officials for not doing their work and for causing harassment to the public and when such actions would be taken.

4. By which date his work would be done by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M).

The Commission heard the parties. Shri Avinash Joshi, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) expressed his apology for not being present during the hearing on 7.9.2006. He mentioned that he was not aware that the PIO could not be present on that date. The PIO, Shri Lahkar did not have convincing explanation for his absence on the date except that he was busy with some other engagement. The Commission expressed its strong disapproval of his not attending the hearing on that date and warned him of the consequences of such attitude towards the Commission. The Commission was further informed by Shri Lahkar, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) & PIO informed that the then PIO was in receipt of the application dated 17.7.2006 and it was endorsed to the Land Requisition Branch of the Deputy Commissioner’s Office. He further stated that record of the Land Acquisition Case No. 42/83 was not traceable and efforts are being made to locate the same.

Shri Joshi, Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) informed that he had fixed up a date for joint verification of the land and issued notices to the petitioner as well as the Commissioner Taxes to be present on the date for joint verification of the land. He further stated that in case the records are not available inspite of their efforts to trace out the same from the old records, he would make all out efforts to reconstruct the same by consulting the Government in the Revenue Department as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) as the records of the land acquisition have not yet been separated.

Mr. Rahman pointed out that in 1991 he received an amount of Rs. 3353.97 as compensation for requisition of the land but he was not paid the compensation for acquisition of his land for use as the approach road of the office of the Commissioner Taxes.

Decision of the Commission

The Commission after hearing both the parties issued the following directions:

1. The records of Land Acquisition Case No. 42/83 should be located by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) / PIO within 3.11.06 as agreed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the information as sought for be furnished to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner within that period.

2. In case of failure of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) / PIO to furnish the information within the date fixed i.e. 3.11.06 the Commission will take action under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) will display the names of the PIOs and APIOs in the signboards in prominent places and instruct other Heads of offices to do likewise in all their offices.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) should take the lead in organizing a seminar or an interactive session with the Heads of offices of his district including the judiciary and other organization in consultation with Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) Guwahati to discuss various clauses of the Act and their implementation. The Commission will be happy to participate in such a programme if it is done on date suitable to the State Chief Information Commissioner / State Information Commissioner.

5. This case will be heard again on 3.11.06 at 11.30 A.M. in which the respondents and the petitioner should be present in the Commission’s office.