In a rare case, the Information Commission has slapped the wrists of the Tamil Nadu Public Authority Department for failing to provide information about Public Information Officers.

As we have written earlier, the Indian bureaucracy has not been any more accountable than before the passing of the RTI Act. And there has been increasing public pressure on the Information Commission to hold officers accountable leading to such a decision. This points to the increased need for greater public participation and demand for accountability.

This note below provides one detailed example of negligence of the Tamil Nadu government and the action taken by the TN Information Commission at the behest of public intervention.

Related Links
Act Now to Save Right to Information Act
RTI Campaign Hits the Trail in Maharashtra
File Notings Part of RTI as per Parliament Discussions
File Notings Essential to RTI

Order of the Tamilnadu Information Commission on petition filed by Dharmesh Shah against Department of Public, Govt of Tamilnadu, seeking list of PIOs/APIOs

Case No. 2138/Enquiry/2006

Date of hearing on 17.10.06

Present:                      Thiru S. Ramakrishnan, IAS., (Retd)

                        Chief Information Commissiner

                                    Thiru G. Ramakrishnan, IAS., (Retd)

                                    Information Commissioner

Petitioner:                    Thiru Dharmesh Shah, H 19/4 Gangai St, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.

Public Authority:          The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public Dept,

Chennai – 600 009

            The petitioner Thiru Dharmesh Shah was present and assisted by his colleague Thiru Nity anand Jayaraman. The Public Authority was represented by Thiru P.C Santhanakrishnan, Deputy Secretary to Govt., Public Dept., Chennai – 600 009.

The petitioner represented that he had asked a simple information namely the list of PIO's/ AAs of all departments and the instructions regarding the mode of payment of the requisite fee. He represented that the Public Dept., to whom the letter was addressed first asked him to remit the fees for the query and he has pointed out in a reply back to them that the information, ought to have been given free of cost as a 'pro-active' disclosure and he should not be asked to make any payment. His plea has not produced any reply or information. He subsequently made an appeal to the AA, Public Dept., and it seems he did not know the name of the officer concerned. He has sent the letter addressed as Appellate Authority, Public Dept. This letter has been returned and was not accepted stating that there was no such post. The petitioner has, on this come on appeal on the Commission and has produced as evidence the returned envelope. The Public Authority represented by the PIO of the Public Dept., stated that the case was originally dealt by his predecessor and that the necessary information are available in the website of the Public Dept. He further stated that he asked for the payment as provided under the Act.

On verification on the website of Public Dept., only the PIOs/Aas of Public Dept., have been listed out by designation. No information regarding other departments are found in the Website. The Public Authority on questioning stated that they do not have any master list in hard copy with them of PIO of the departments and they have to collect it from all the departments. The examination of the letter sent by him to the petitioner shows that the petitioner has been directed to apply with the requisite fee separately to each of the departments of the Secretariat and collect the information.

It is a tragedy of extreme proportion that the Public Dept., which is the custodian and administrator of the Act has exhibited suck abysmal ignorance of the Act. This Commission is extremely pained by the fact that the elementary requirement of the Act has not been fulfilled by the Public Dept., and they have not met the basic requirement of their obligation under Sec. 4 of the Act, which is at the center of the Act. This, despite the fact that this Commission had occasion to write to the Chief Secretary to Government directing him that Section 4 'obligation' must be met by all departments in full before the end of October 2006 and we (have) now entered into second half of the October and even the basic administrative department right under the custody of the Chief Secretary himself has not moved. It pains the Commission to see this scant respect and interest shown to this landmark legislation of the august Parliament of India by the concerned Public Dept., Officers. It is also a crying shame that the PIO of this very department seems to be totally ignorant of the obligation of a PIO and instead of himself referring the petition to the other departments of Secretariat of which he did not have the information himself, has callously asked the petitioner to run around to each department with a fresh payment. Ignorance of law is not 'bliss' but punishable and punishment has to be in proportion to the gravity of offence. Violation of law by the very custodian of law calls for the highest degree of punishment which one can think of.

(a)   The Commission therefore directs that the Secretary, Public Department would immediately take personal action to ensure that the list of PIOs/AAs of every department of Secretariat is collected and a hard copy delivered to the petitioner at his residence before the end of this week viz., 20 ^th October 06, 5 p.m. obtain his acknowledgement and file before the Commission. The same exercise regarding all other HODs and Public Authorities in the State must be completed before 15^th November, 2006 and supplied to the petitioner and reported to this Commission.

(b)   Immediately cause an enquiry to be made as to how the application made to AA of the Public Dept., has been rejected by the tappal registry of the same department, frame charges   against the concerned and the result reported to the Commission within a fortnight.

(c)   Call for the explanation of the PIO who had made illegal direction to the petitioner as to why the punishment under the Act should not be visited upon her and forward the same to the Commission within a fortnight;

(d)   Refund any cost collected as information has not been supplied within the stipulated period.

A copy of the Commission's judgment is forwarded to the Chief Secretary to Government, to note the sorry state of administration of the Act in his own department. The Commission would expect that he will take immediate action to ensure that this type of disaster do not repeat in future.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

                  Orders passed this day 17^th October, 2006.

                  Under the Orders of the Commission.

                                                                                          (T.R. DANDAPANI) 

                                                                                                    SECRETARY   

Thiru Dharmesh Shah

H 19/4 Gangai St,

Ka lakshetra Colony

Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090

The Deputy Secretary to Government,

Public Department, Chennai – 600 009

The Chief Secretary to Government,

Public Department,

Chennai – 600 009

The Secretary to Government,

Public Department,

Chennai – 600 009