PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No. CCR.17/2007

Dated 01-02-2008

Name of the Complainant:
Md. Nurul Hussain
S/o. Late Ansar Ali, Vill & P.O. Manipur
Pt.II, Dist. Cachar, Assam

Name of the Public Authority / SPIO:
PD, DRDA, Cachar & CEO, ZP, Cachar

The Commission had its sitting today to consider the enquiry report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Cachar submitted vide her letter dated 18.1.08

Brief of the case
On. 26.12.07 the Commission while disposing the AIC Case No. CCR.17/2007 (Md. Nurul Hussain -vs- PD, DRDA, Cachar & CEO, Zilla Parishad) passed the following orders:

  1. As the PD, DRDA, Cachar now has submitted in his affidavit that the BDO, Baskandi Development Block had received the petition sent by his office but failed to furnish the information on time, the Commission felt that a proper enquiry should be conducted into the matter to find out the truth. The Commission accordingly decided to direct the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Cachar under section 19(8) (a) of RTI Act, 2005 r/w Rule 5(iii) of Assam Government Notification NO. AR.87/2005/89 dated 24.2.2006 to personally enquire into the matter and submit his report to the Commission by 17.1.2008.
  2. A copy of the affidavit submitted by the PD, DRDA, Cachar will be sent to the CEO, Zilla Parishad and BDO Baskandi Dev Block for facilitating the enquiry.
Accordingly the CEO, Zilla Parishad Cachar submitter her report after conducting the enquiry as ordered by the Commission.

Observation of the Commission
The Commission observed that the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Cachar in her enquiry report stated that the Project Director, DRDA, Cachar sent letter to the BDO, Banskandi Development Block on 4.7.07 with copies to CEO and the complainant and while both CEO and the complainant received the letters, the BDO, Banskandi did not receive it but the BDO received a copy of the petition only with the notice of Commission on 7.11.07. The complainant stated before the CEO that when he enquired into the matter on receipt of the letter of the PD, DRDA, the UDA cum Accountant of the block office denied having received any such letter. But the complainant never met the BDO personally.

From the Issue & Despatch Register, it appeared to CEO that the DRDA office issued the letter but the letter was not received by the BDO and both UDA of the block and the LDA of the PD, DRDA office stated before the CEO that they did not see the letter. The UDA Shri S. Bhatta told the CEO that Mr. Hussain (complainant) was unaware of the contents of the letter while the LDA Shri B. Bhattachrjee stated that he could not remember to whom such a letter was handed over or if the letter was received by the BDO.

The CEO found that both the Assistants took the matter lightly and that there was no record of issue and receipt maintained in the Block Office. She found that the LDA of PD, DRDA office could not produce any proof of receipt of the letter by the BDO or by his office staff. She found negligence on the part of the officials of both the DRDA and Block Offices.

It appears, that the RTI matter are very lightly taken in the office of the PD, DRDA. The whole issue was handled very casually. While the BDO's office or the BDO did not receive the letter as per their statements, the complainant as well as the CEO received the copy of the same letter. Thus, this entire matter appears to be fishy and has arisen due to the negligence of PD, DRDA as he was the SPIO and it was his duty to collect the information and furnish the same to the complainant.

Decisions of the Commission
  1. The Commission on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case decided to let off the PD, DRDA by allowing him the benefit of doubt and in view of the fact that it was his first offence. The absence of the complainant on the date of hearing and furnishing of information by the BDO, Banskandi promptly on receiving of the notice of the Commission were also the factors the Commission considered relevant for taking a lenient view in dealing with the PD, DRDA. Therefore, the penalty decision passed by the Commission in its hearing on 21.11.08 will not be executed and it will stand resiled by this order.
  2. the PD, DRDA, Cachar should ensure that the entire system of disposal of RTI applications / matters be strengthened so that no citizen is deprived from submitting application before the PD, DRDA. He should open a separate register for receipt and disposal of RTI applications / matters as well as entrust more individuals to receive the applications / fees etc on RTI matters from the citizens in his absence so that no citizen goes back without submitting their applications/ fees in the office of the PD, DRDA.
  3. CEO, Zilla Prishad / PD, DRDA will also initiate disciplinary action against the negligent staff in handling the petition of the complainant in this case & report compliance to the Commission within a month.
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.

Memo No SIC/CCR.17/2007 Dated February 1, 2008

CC:

  1. The Project Director, DRDA, Cachar, Assam.
  2. The CEO, Zilla Parishad, Cachar, Assam.
  3. Shri Hari Charan Bhaskta, BDO, Banskandi, Cachar, Assam
  4. Md. Nurul Hussain, S/o. Late Ansar Ali, Vill & P.O. Manipur Pt.II, Dist-Cachar, Assam.
  5. The DIPR, Dispur, Guwahati.
  6. MD, AMTRON, Bamunimaidan
  7. Office file.

Secretary
State Information Commission, Assam