Dated 21-11-2007

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

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

The following was present:
1. Smt Sadhana Hojai CEO, Cachar Zilla Parishad
2. Shri N. Ghosh, PD, .DRDA, Cachar
3. Shri Hari Charan Bhaskta ROO, Banskandi

The complainant absent. The CEO, Zilla Parishad, Cachar, the PD, DRDA, Cachar and the BDO, Banskandi present. The Commission decided to hear the case ex-parte based on records.

Brief of the case
On 11.10.07 a petition was received from Md. Nurul Hussain in which he complained that on 16.4.07, he submitted an application under the RTI Act, 2006 to the Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zilla Parishad, Silchar seeking information about the allocation and actionplan under the schemes of SGRY, SGSY and IBS against the A.P. fund allotted to No. 82 Manipur Tarapur Gaon Panchayat area under Banskandi Development Block for the years from 2004-05 to 2007. The CEO asked the PD, DRDA to furnish him the information vide letter dated 10.5.07. When he did not get any information, he again submitted another application to the CEO, Cachar Zilla Parishad on 13.6.07. Then on 9.7.07 he received a copy of the. order dated 4.7.07 from the APIO, DRDA, Cachar asking the B.D.O. Banskandi Development Block to furnish the required information. But inspite of repeated requests, the BDO, Banskandi Development Block did not furnish him any information. Then he submitted an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, as the 1st Appellate Authority on 30.7.07. D.C admitted the appeal and passed an order asking the PD, DRDA to furnish him the information. But inspite of all these directions, he had not yet received any information and hence approached the Commission. Hence this complaint case.

Submission of the parties
The Chief Executive Officer, Cachar Zilla Parishad stated that she received the petition on 7.5.07. She sent the petition to the PD, DRDA Cachar on 10.5.07.

The PD, DRDA Cachar submitted that his APIO sent the petition to the BDO, Banskandi on 20.6.07 on receipt ofthe petition by him on 10.5.07.

The BDO, Banskandi stated that he did not receive the petition sent from the office of the PD, DRDA, Cachar. On receipt of the notice of the Commission on 7.11.07 he came to learn about the petition and he sent the information on 17.11.07.

Observation of the Commission:
The Commission observed that the Project Director, DRDA, Cachar who is the State Public Information Officer of his office tried to shirk his responsibility by 'transferring' the application of the petitioner to the BDO, Banskandi Development Block. He did not care to find out whether the said application was received by the BDO concerned. In fact, the BDO informed the Commission that he did not receive the application of the petitioner and only on recipt of the notice of the Commission, he prepared by reply and sent the same to the petitioner within 10 days. The PD, DRDA, Cachar also did not take any steps even on receipt of the direction of the DC, Cachar to furnish the information. In fact, he was not aware as to whether the information was given by the BDO concerned or not. This showed utter negligence on the part of the PD, DRDA, Cachar in this case.

The Commission, in the absence of the complainant accepted the contention of the CEO, Zilla Parishad that the petition of the complainant dated 16.4.07 was received only on 10.5.07

Taking 10.5.07 as the date of receipt of the petition as confirmed by the CEO, Zilla Parishad and the PD, DRDA, Cachar the P.D. DRDA should have furnished the information within thirty days and clearly there was a delay of 160 days from 11.6.07 to 17.11.07, the date on vyhich the BDO, Banskandi furnished the information. There was no justification, whatsoever, from the PD, DRDA for the delay.

Decision of the Commission:
The Commission on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the PD, DRDA, Cachar failed to furnish the information sought for by the complainant within the stipulated time.

The Commission, therefore, decided to impose a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day from 1l.6.07 to 17.11.07 up to the maximum of Rs. 25,000/- on the Project Director, DRDA, Cachar in exercise ofthe powers conferred under section 20 (1) ofthe RTI Act, 2005.

However it would be in the fitness of things that a reasonable opportunity be given to the PD, DRDA to explain as to why the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be executed.

Hence the Commission decided to direct the PD, DRDA Cachar to submit a sworn affidavit showing cause within 15 days of the date of this order as to why the penalty so ordered should not be received from him.

The Commission fixed 7.12.07 for consideration of the sworn affidavit and the Secretary of the Commission would put up the file before the State Chief Information Commissioner on that day.

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
(Jaiuddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.

Memo No: SIC/CCR/17/2007/12 Dated November 21, 2007

CC:
1. The Project Director, DRDA, Cachar,Assam.
2. The CEO, Zilla Parishad, Cachar.
3. Shri Hari Char an 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, Janata Bhawan Dispur