Usha Ajay Singh v. M. P. State Information Commission
2024-12-11
VIVEK AGARWAL
body2024
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : VIVEK AGARWAL, J. Ms. Ankita Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not at fault to cause delay in dissemination of information in her capacity as Public Information Officer and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Commission vide order dated 26.03.2009 calls for interference. 2. On perusal of order dated 26.03.2009, Annexure P-13, it is evident that learned Information Commissioner has taken this aspect into consideration that vide application dated 11.04.2007 under the R.T.I. Act applicant Ashutosh Verma had sought certain information in regard to the financial years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 as to supply of the details and the progress of the work assign to the registered labour or other Samities for the purpose of development. 3. Information regarding such institutions along with copy of the their registration and the post bearers was also sought. At point No.3, information was sought as to whether non-tribal registered or other institutions can be given work in the department? and if yes, then the copy of the order of the State. 4. It has also come on record that Public Information Officer had neither sent acknowledgment within the prescribed time period nor issue any letter to the appellant. When information was not received from the Public Information Officer, then appellant had filed first appeal on 25.05.2007. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.06.2007 passed an order directing to decide his application within ten days and copy of that order was sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Seoni as well as the appellant. After orders of the First Appellate Authority, Public Information Officer did not act on the orders of the First Appellate Authority as a result second appeal was filed when after filing of the second appeal information was made available on 13.06.2008. Thus, information seeker was required to wait for over one year to get the desire information and when show cause notice was issued to the Public Information Officer, then she expressed that in her office the then Clerk, Shri Santlal Dhurve, Assistant Grade-III had not presented the application of the applicant nor produce the order of the First appellate Officer as result she cannot cat on it.
Information Commission has dealt with issue and has noted that vide order dated 21.07.2008, Commission had passed an order under Section 20 of the Act of 2005 to issue show cause notice to the Public Information Officer as to why penalty be not imposed against the said officer and further directed the Commissioner Tribal Welfare to institute an enquiry against the Public Information Officer and other responsible employees. It was requested that said proceedings be completed within three months and compliance report be sent to the Commission. 5. Shri Santlal Dhurve was also show cause by the commission and he vide its reply dated 28.01.2009 informed that on 11.04.2007 he had put up the file but the Assistant Commissioner had put a note that "if stamped envelop is not received, then file the complaint." Thereafter, Santlal Dhurve, Assistant Grade-III appeared for personal hearing before the Commissioner on 20.02.2009 and he had produced the necessary note-sheets before the Assistant Director who had in turn produce them before the Assistant Commissioner Madam and she had given a direction to file the complaint in absence of the stamped envelop. 6. Thus, the facts of the case reveal that Smt. Usha |Ajay Singh had derelicted in performance of her duty and when this aspect is taken into consideration, then she is not only guilty of dereliction of duty but also of giving incorrect statements before the State Information Commission and when impugned order is tested on the touchstone of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and no material is brought on record to show that the petitioner had acted promptly to provide information in accordance with law, then it cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.