The State Information Commission has said the provisions of the Right to Information Act and directions of the Commission are being violated by the public authorities and public information officers with impunity.
Disposing a case, state information commissioner Ashraf Mir directed the PIO, block development officer Budgam, to explain why he has denied the information to the applicant.
He said that every public authority is ordained and obligated under the Act to facilitate the right to information of every person residing in Jammu and Kashmir.
An applicant on July 17, 2017, had sought information from BDO Budgam with regard to the execution of works in village Naroo, Budgam, from 2011 to 2017, list of job card holders with details of work executed, payment disbursed under MGNREGA, CD Panchayat, 13/14th Finance commission award, education sector and ground water executed through Rural Development Department.
As no information was provided by the PIO, the appellant filed first appeal with First Appellate Authority (FAA), Deputy Commissioner Budgam, on August 26, 2017. The FAA vide its order dated 12-9-2017 rejected the appeal on the ground that the PIO had conveyed to the appellant to deposit tentative amount of Rs 50,000/ as copying charges and the applicant has failed to deposit the same to get the information from the PIO.
The appellant filed a second appeal before the commission. The appellant informed the commission that he never received any letter from the PIO wherein they have claimed to have asked him to deposit the copying charges.
The commission in November 2017 asked the PIO and FAA to file the reply to the 2nd appeal within seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice.
As the PIO and FAA failed to file any reply, the commission again in December 2017 sent a notice to them to file their counter objection and also appear before the commission, but nobody turned up.
After observing the “casual approach” of PIO (BDO Budgam) and FAA (DC Budgam), the Commission directed the PIO to explain, “How he has calculated the tentative cost of copying charges as Rs 50, 000 when the information sought pertained to just one village Naroo.”
“Also, the PIO is directed to submit a copy of the letter along with the postal evidence through which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs 50,000 as copying charges.”
The Commission also directed the registry to send a copy of this order to director RDD, who happens to be the controlling officer of the PIO at the divisional level.