Initially, Dr. Pinto replied to all items of information sought including two questions above as ‘Not available’.
The matter came up before the Goa Information Commission in appeal.
The Goa Information Commission has held the petitioner guilty of furnishing incomplete, misleading and false information and has imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000 which is liable to be deducted from the petitioner’s salary.
Before the High Court, it was submitted that SIC has wrongly held that the petitioner provided incomplete and misleading information, etc.
The High Court passed the following order:
The Commission has with reference to question No. 1 held that the petitioner has provided incomplete and misleading information. As regards point No. 1, it has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner has provided false information in stating that the seniority list is not available. It is not possible to comprehend how the Commission has come to this conclusion. This could have been a valid conclusion if some party would have produced a copy of the seniority list and proved that it was in the file to which the petitioner, Information Officer, had access and yet she said ‘Not Available’. In such circumstances it would have been possible to uphold the observation of the Commission that the petitioner provided false information in stating initially that the seniority list is not available.
As regards the requisition Nos. 2 and 3 by which the petitioner was called upon to give information as to why the post of Curator was not filled up by promotion and why the Librarian from the Engineering College was not considered for promotion, the petitioner had initially answered by stating that the information was “N.A.” (Not Available). Thereafter, she had clarified by stating that it means “I don’t know”. The Commission has initially observed in para No. 13 that it does not see anything wrong in the petitioner’s reply that she does not know the information because “P.LO. cannot manufacture the information.”
It can be recalled that the petitioner corrected the information by explaining that “Not Available” meant “she does not know.” It is not possible to accept the reasoning of the Commission. There is no substance in the observation that merely because the petitioner initially said “Not Available” and later on corrected her statement and said she does not know, the petitioner provided incomplete and incorrect information. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by S. 2(f) as follows:
“S. 2(f) – Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press release, circulars, orders, logbook, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data materials held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question ‘why’, which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification, because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
In this view of the matter, the order of the Commission appears to suffer from a serious error of law apparent on record and results in the miscarriage of justice. In the result, the impugned order is hereby set aside.
[Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa SIC & Anr., W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decided on 3-4-2008]
Part C : Other News
• RTI information provided with condition:
In an ingenious attempt to have its cake and eat it too, AIIMS has made a disclosure under the RTI with the condition that it was meant only for the applicant’s ‘personal consumption’ and he should not share it with the media without the ‘written permission’ of its director.
Such conditional disclosure is contrary to the scheme of RTI as it allows the applicant to use the law for any purpose. This is evident from S. 6(2), which exempts the applicant from giving “any reason for requesting the information”.
• SIC, Maharashtra needs police protection:
Chief Information Commissioner Suresh [oshi was among those stuck in office till late in the night on 26/11 though he was nowhere near CST, Hotel Taj, Hotel Oberoi-Trident or Nariman House where terrorists struck. He had been besieged by a group of six RTI activists who allegedly made him sit back well past midnight demanding that he pass an order on an RTI appeal that very day.
Joshi has now written to Police Chief Hasan Gafoor seeking police protection, pointing out that many of the people who visit his office are accused in bomb blasts or named in criminal cases.
Speaking to Mumbai Mirror, Joshi said: “The RTI activists are good people, but they were adamant and were unwilling to leave. Their desire was that I pass an order the same day, but I was firm (on not doing their bidding). They cannot dictate to us. Earlier, we did not feel the need for protection, but now we can’t predict the nature of people visiting our office.”
• RTI and Stamp Duty refunds:
If you are still waiting to get your refund from the stamp duty office even after months of filing your application for the same, the Right to Information (RTI) Act can come to your rescue.
The information law can not only help you get the refund, but also penalise the errant bureaucrat who hasn’t responded to your queries.
Tarun Ghia, a chartered accountant, had sought information on the number of applications that had come for stamp duty refund and the total amount of refund that had been disbursed in the last two years. Mr. Ghia also said that the unreasonable delay may instigate corruption and will be the cause for misery for the common man.
A person is eligible for refund when he has paid the stamp duty, but the document remains unexecuted. Such cases are common, especially in real estate transactions, and the stamp duty office is flooded with applications for refund.
The State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,OOOon the Deputy Super-intendent of Stamps, Mumbai, for not providing information to an applicant on stamp duty refunds.
