A complainant was received from Ali Akbar Mia on 15.9.06 by the Chief Information Commissioner stating that the complainant did not receive information on the points raised by him in his petition dated 16.8.06 from the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. He wanted information on the following:

(a) What amounts were received from Government by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri during 2005-06 under MLA Area Development?
(b) Against the amounts for the Assemblies, what schemes were submitted by the MLAs and how much sanctions were issued? (list the details)
(c) It is a fact that the suppliers were not paid in full for supply of 100 tube wells, 124 spray machines for Bilashipara West Assembly and Mahamaya Assembly constituencies?
(d) (i) Whether it is a fact that the BDO Mahamaya on receipt of the bills from J.E has not paid the amounts to the suppliers?
(ii) What action will be / have been taken against the officers / staff for harassing the suppliers?
(e) Is it a fact that the MLA of the constituency submitted schemes under saving of MLA development fund but no schemes have been sanctioned?
(f) What schemes have been submitted by the present MLA for non used funds? (Enclose the lists)
(g) Is it a fact that the Rest House for Bilashipara Char Unnayan Samittee was half completed (2005-06 schemes) but full payment was not made leading to damage of the timber, brick, sand etc ? Who will be responsible for this?

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri informed that he had furnished the required information to the complainant on the points raised by the petitioner.

However on point (c), the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri clarified that only 70% of the funds is generally released for any scheme and not 100% and only after getting utilization certificate for 70% of funds, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri can release the rest amount. But in the case, the BDO concerned paid the entire amount to the suppliers without submitting utilization certificate which is being looked into by him.

Regarding point (e), the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri clarified that the then MLA did submit a scheme for supply of furniture which is not permitted under the guidelines of the scheme. The complainant said that he submitted a new proposal for Rs. 25,000/- for earth filling. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri said that he was not aware of it and would inquire and inform the petitioner about the present status.

Regarding point (g), the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri assured that the matter would be enquired into and the result thereof informed to the petitioner.


Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that there was delay in furnishing the information to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri has just joined there and he is not aware of many things that happened earlier. Considering this fact, the Commission is not passing any orders on the delayed response by the public authority. However the Commission directs that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri should cause an enquiry as to whether a new proposal for earth filling was submitted under the savings scheme as claimed by the petitioner. The Commission further directs the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to conduct an enquiry about the present position of the construction of the Rest House and whether any damage was caused. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri should inform the complainant about both the matters.