Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION
Annual Report 2012-2013
Tripura Information Commission Secretariat Annexe building Pandit Nehru Complex, Agartala, Tripura
INDEX
1. CHAPTER - I … … Page 1
2. CHAPTER- II … … Page 7
3. CHAPTER – III … … Page 16
4. CHAPTER – IV … … Page 35
5. ANNEXURE-I … … Page 44
6. ANNEXURE-II … … Page 45
7. ANNEXURE-III … … Page 54
8. ANNEXURE-IV … … Page 55
9. ANNEXURE-V … … Page 56
10.ANNEXURE-VI … … Page 67
11.HIGHLIGHTS OF SOME OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS DECIDED DURING YEAR 2012 – 13… Page 69
Tripura Information Commission Secretariat Annexe building, Pandit Nehru Complex, Agartala, Tripura Website- rtitripura.nic.in. Telephone- 0381- 231-8021, 232-6561, 232-4146
Fax No. : 0381- 231-8021
1
Chapter I
Introduction
1.1 Tripura Information Commission presents the Annual Report for the year
2012-13 as mandated under section 25(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is a status
report on the implementation of the provision of the Act undertaken during the
period under consideration. This is the eighth Annual Report of the Commission
and the other seven Reports have been forwarded to the State Government at
the end of each year detailing activities during the period and with several
recommendations of the Commission with a view to cause a copy of the report
to be laid before the State Legislature, as required under section 25(4) of the RTI
Act
1.2 The RTI Act, 2005 mandates a legal institutional framework for setting out a
practical regime for right to information for all citizens, to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities. This is viewed as a
prerequisite to promote total transparency in the working of government and
accountability of every public authority discharging official duty. The Act
envisages to bring in a total change in the mindset of ‘Secrecy’ generated by
the colonial legislations such as the Official Secrecy Act and Law of Evidence.
The Preamble of the Right to Information Act further outlines the grounds that
may necessitate withholding of the information from the citizens apprehending
that such disclosure is likely to cause conflict with public interests and adversely
affect, (i) Efficient functioning of the government, (ii) Optimum utilization of
limited resources and (iii) Preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.
1.3 The Annual Report for the year 2012 – 13 has been prepared on the basis
of information furnished by the public authorities of the State Government and
on the outcome of results based on the analysis as has been made in the
Commission on the second appeals and complaints as have been received
2
from the citizens of the State during the period. It focuses mainly on status of
implementation of RTI Act by the State Government authorities in accordance
with responsibility cast upon them under section 25(2) of the Act. These include,
inter-alia, status of submission of report by different departments of the State,
analysis of some key aspects like number of applications received during the
period, details of SPIOs, trend of disposal of applications of information seekers
and nature of information sought over the years. The data received from the
departments on various issues during the year of report have been compared
with corresponding figures of the preceding years and have been analyzed with
a view to ascertain the pattern as are being emerged from implementation of
the Act. This Annual Report of Tripura Information Commission also presents a
comprehensive picture of discharge of duties in respect of effective
implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Public Authorities, Public Information
Officers and other stakeholders in the State along with related activities and
events associated with the Commission.
1.4 Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of
information, which are vital to its functioning. With such objective, the RTI Act
was enacted on 15th June, 2005 and Tripura Information Commission was
constituted by the State Government as mandated under section 15(1) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, vide Notification No.F.3(5)-GA(AR)/2005/P-III
dated 10th October, 2005 of the General Administration(A.R.) Department of the
Government that started functioning from January, 2006. The Notification is
placed at Annexure – I. From 19-01-2006 to 18-01-2011, Tripura Information
Commission was headed by Shri Bimal Kr. Chakraborty, IAS(Retd) as Chief
Information Commissioner. Shri D. K. Daschoudhury, TJS(Retd) was State
Information Commissioner from 19-01-2006 to 11-10-2009.
1.5 The Government of Tripura vide Notification of the G.A.(A.R.) Department
No.F.13(3)-GA(AR)/2010 dated 18th January, 2011 appointed Shri Shashi Prakash,
IAS(Retd) as Chief Information Commissioner and Smt. Shyamalima Banerjee,
IAS(Retd) as State Information Commissioner who started functioning from 19-
3
01-2011. However, the Commission is presently being headed by the lone State
Information Commissioner after the Chief Information Commissioner relinquished
charge and left the State in October, 2011.
1.6 The Tripura Information Commission is located at the first floor of the
Secretariat Annexe building at Pandit Nehru Complex, Agartala – 799 006. The
Commission has set up its court room and hearing of all appeals and complaints
are being held in the newly constructed court room from 2011.
1.7 As provided under section 27(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the appropriate
government may, by notification in Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the
provisions of the Act. The Government of Tripura vide Notification No.F.3(5)-
GA(AR)/2005(L) dated 29-01 2008 had issued Rules to carry out the provisions of
the Act, prescribing details regarding the application fees, cost of materials and
mode of payment to government departments for obtaining information from
the public authorities including many other related issues. The government had
published The Tripura Right To Information Rules, 2008 in the Gazette of the State
through an extra-ordinary issue of the Tripura Gazette on February 4, 2008.
1.8 Considering the day to day experience of the Commission on delay /
failure to provide information to the information seekers by the Public Information
Officers due to difficulty in locating files of the departments, the Commission has
examined the record management system in the State. With a view to guide the
state government departments to adopt a simple yet effective system to track
the records pertaining to both closed old files and the current documents, the
Commission has designed a system with technical support from National
Informatics Centre(NIC). The system has already been implemented in Tripura
Information Commission that has brought great efficiency in management of
records of the Commission. The Commission has recommended adoption of
similar system by all State departments with technical support from NIC
customizing the system as would be required by the individual departments.
4
1.9 The Commission has also examined the Record Retention Schedule
common to all departments of the government which was issued in 2000 and
has noticed absence of clear directions on weeding out of records on many
issues. This has caused hardship to the public authorities of departments to
retrieve records as would be sought under the Act by the citizens from piles of
records / files / documents accumulated over the years in record rooms in
absence of clear directions on retention period of such files / records for timely
weeding out of such records. As retention period of many important issues have
not been spelled out, the public authorities have obligation to preserve all such
old records to provide copies of records on demand to information seekers. On
the other hand in absence of clear directions to destroy useless and irrelevant
records to make space for newer documents being created every day,
departments are facing problems to arrange government records methodically.
These issues deserve immediate intervention of General Administration(AR)
Department of the state government to reduce hardship of the public
authorities.
1.10 Electronic management of citizens’ complaints is a state of the art
technology. The ‘TIC Online’ workflow system has been introduced in the
Commission and the system is being used by large number of citizens of the
State. The system is functioning efficiently for the benefit of the citizens. The
Commission has been endeavouring constantly to improve the system with a
view to provide better service to all stakeholders. The ‘online filing’ of RTI
complaints has been put in place. During the year, the Commission’s website
has been upgraded. The website is in two languages, in English and in Bangla.
The Commission has made all arrangements to launch its third website in
Kokborok soon. The website in Kokborok would include RTI Act, Tripura RTI Rules,
Guides for all stakeholders and answers to frequently asked questions in
Kokborok along with other matters in Kokborok. The website of the Commission
facilitates disclosure of information as has been envisaged in sec. 4(1)(b) of the
Act, and is under constant upgradation on a dynamic mode. The website
provides information in a structured manner to facilitate easy public access on
5
status of complaint / appeal filed, cause list including the archive of cause list,
decisions of the Commission and all related activities.
1.11 During the period the Commission has prepared several booklets to guide
SPIOs, FAAs and the Public Authorities towards its endeavour to implement the
Act effectively. These booklets prepared on the guidelines of the Department
of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Government of India have been circulated among the State departments and
also among the Public Information Officers at the field level offices of the State
for efficient implementation of the Act.
i) ‘Taithyer Adhikar’ a book on RTI Act previously prepared in Bangla has now
been prepared in Kokborok.
ii) Bangla website has been launched and is being modified to provide better
services to the citizens.
iii)The Record Management Information System(RMIS) in place for efficient
management of files and old documents.
1.12 The Commission has requested the State Government to add a chapter
on RTI Act, 2005 at school level. A write up has been forwarded to the State
Council for Educational Research and Training(SCERT) for the purpose of
inclusion of the write up on the RTI Act, 2005 in the school syllabi at high school
level.
1.13 No time limit has been mandated in the Act to settle appeals or
complaints by the Commission. However, the Tripura Information Commission
with a view to provide prompt response to the appeals and complaints of the
citizens have fixed 45 days for deciding the appeals / complaints after hearing
both the parties in the open court and announcing its decisions there. The orders
of the Commission are issued on the day of hearing and are provided to the
information seekers and the State Public Information Officers free of cost. After
assessing its capacity to deliver as required under the Act and considering the
6
actions required as provided under the Tripura Right to Information Rules, 2008,
the Commission to further bring uniformity and discipline in its functioning, has
also prepared its guidelines which are being followed meticulously. The
guidelines are placed at Annexure – II.
1.15 The SPIOs and FAAs of some of the selected departments having large
public interface had attended several inter-active sessions as had been
organised by the Commission during the period with a view to remove doubts on
implementation of provisions of the Act. Several discussions were held in the
Commission with the Public Authorities of several departments to guide them to
upload information pertaining to the departments, mandatory under section 4(1)
of the RTI Act, 2005. All these activities of the Commission have borne results in
educating the information providers of the State government departments to
discharge their duties effectively. This is evident from the trend of decreasing
number of second appeals and complaints before the Commission.
1.16 The Commission expresses satisfaction while observing remarkable
change in attitude and knowledge of the information providers on provisions of
the Act as also the awareness level of the information seekers being the ‘well
informed citizenry’. This has been made possible as different stakeholders have
played their role effectively.
1.17 During the year the Commission with support from Tripura Info.com had
arranged a Quiz Competition involving students from Schools and Colleges on
Right to Information Act. Talks on RTI Act and responding queries of citizens by
the Commissioner on various aspects of the Act were organized by DDK,
Agartala for benefit of the citizens of the State.
7
Chapter II
Tripura Information Commission During 2012-13
2.1 Implementation of the RTI Act in the country has given a new hope to
helpless citizens who have been otherwise struggling at every step in
administration even to know the status of a petty routine matter. The RTI Act is
responsible to expose those who misuse power and has been acting as a
deterrent to habitual road blocks in social service. There are, however, cases of
misuse of the RTI Act by a few individuals but the positive contributions of the Act
outweigh such pitfalls.
Role and Power of the Commission: Tripura Information Commission is a
quasi judiciary forum established as per provision of section 15(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. It enjoys the power of the Civil Court as are vested in
trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Commission has power to
issue summon and enforce the attendance of a person and compel him to give
oral or written evidence as also to produce documents or other evidence
requiring the discovery and inspection of records, apart from receiving evidence
on affidavit, sending requisition for any public records and copies thereof from
any government department. The Commission has a number of key roles to play
to ensure that the Right to Information Act is implemented effectively by
supporting the citizens to obtain the required information and providing
assistance specially to the disadvantaged groups.
The Information Commission is responsible for the following:
2.1.1 Handling of Complaints and appeals: It is the duty and responsibility of the
Commission to receive and enquire a complaint from any person who has been
unable to submit a request for information to a Public Information Officer for
reasons that no such officer has been appointed; Public Information Officer has
refused to receive and accept the application for information or appeal; citizen
has been refused access to any information; SPIO has not given response to a
request for information within specified time; SPIO has demanded unreasonable
8
fee; applicant believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false
information. It is also the duty and responsibility of the Commission to receive
Second Appeal filed against the decision of the First Appellate Authority within a
period of 90 days from the date on which the 1st Appellate Authority disposed of
the 1st appeal. In deciding the 2nd appeal, the Commission has the power to
require the Public Authority to take steps to comply with the provisions of the RTI
Act; direct the public Authority to designate State Public Information Officer and
proactively disclose certain information; pass direction about record
management and for deciding retention period of particular records; direct the
public Authority to enhance the provision of training on the Right to Information
for its officials; providing an annual report to the Commission by every Public
Authority; require the Public Authority to compensate the
complainant/appellant for any loss or other detriment suffered; impose penalty
and recommend for instituting departmental proceeding against the erring
Public Information Officers; reject the 2nd appeal.
2.1.2 Monitoring of Implementation: The annual reports are being prepared by
the State Information Commission on the basis of information and data furnished
by the Public Authorities and also on activities carried out by the Commission.
The report in prescribed format has to be furnished by the Public Authority after
the end of each year as required under the provision as has been laid down
under section 25(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The State Information
Commission would oversee the compliance of the said provision of the Act and
suggest the Public Authorities to reduce the gap of performance to reach the
desired level of achievement as envisaged in the Act. The State Information
Commission may make recommendations to the State Government specifying
the steps which in its opinion is necessary to be taken for effective
implementation of the Act in the State.
2.1.3 The Special Human Right Oversight: Under section 24(4) of the Act, the
State Government, in exercise of the power as conferred upon it, may exempt
the intelligence and security organization from the purview of the Right to
9
Information Act by issuing notification in the official gazette from time to time.
The Government of Tripura, by virtue of the provision of section 24(4) of the Act
has exempted the Police Organization including its Forensic Laboratory from the
purview of this Act. However, in respect of the information pertaining to the
allegation of human right violation, the Police Organization is required to disclose
information with approval of the State Information Commission. That apart, the
Police Organization including its Forensic Laboratory is also bound to furnish
information pertaining to the allegation of corruption, even though it is
exempted from the purview of the Right to Information Act. The notification
issued by the government in Tripura Gazette is enclosed at Annexure – III.
2.2 Handling of appeals and complaints in the Commission:
2.2.1 Tripura Information Commission decides both complaint under section 18
and second appeal under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act. In
course of deciding complaint as well as appeal, the Commission calls for
attendance of both the complainant / appellant and the respondent issuing
notice and summon in the prescribed form allowing reasonable time for making
written rejoinder and representation by the complainant / appellant and the
respondent as the case may be and also for personal hearing.
2.2.2 The Commission does not consider personal appearance of the
complainant / appellant mandatory. Even, in absence of the complainant /
appellant on reasonable grounds to the satisfaction to accept the request, the
Commission decides complaint/appeal on merit. The Commission does not
decide any appeal / complaint without hearing / giving a chance to the
appellant / complainant and the respondent.
2.2.3 The Commission conducts hearing in open court calling both the parties
and announces its order in open court before the parties and after concluding
the hearing the judgment and order is pronounced on the same day. The copy
of the judgment and order is provided to both the parties free of cost either by
hand or by post as opted by the appellant / complainant and the Public
10
Information Officers of the departments with due authentication from the
Commission. The copy of the judgment and order is also uploaded on the
website of Tripura Information Commission (www.rtitripura.nic.in) and such
judgment and order of the Commission is easily accessible to the citizens.
2.2.4 The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not provide any time limit for
deciding an appeal or a complaint by the Information Commission. However,
Tripura Information Commission has drawn up its own guidelines and decides an
appeal or a complaint within 45 days of admission of an appeal or complaint.
The cases are generally disposed of after a single hearing following the entire
process of issue of summons and notices to parties and conducting enquiry
including scrutiny of records. The Commission during hearing also explains the
relevant provisions of the Act with a view to educate the State Public Information
Officers as also the information seekers for effective implementation of the Act.
2.2.5 Tripura Information Commission does not close any case without receiving
compliance report from the stake holders. The Commission gets it ensured that
the judgments and orders are complied with within the time limit as are specified
in the judgments. A case is finally closed after examination of the compliance
report and getting satisfied with the action as are required to be taken by all the
stake holders involved.
2.2.6 The proceedings of the Commission are held in congenial atmosphere in
the court room of the Commission to enable the information seekers to feel free
to represent their cases and also to express their views without any
apprehension.
2.2.7 The Commission, further has analyzed the trends of appeal petitions and
complaints being lodged by the information seekers before the Commission over
the last six years and noted that there is a rise in lodging of complaints and
appeals in the year 2007 – 08 from the number as recorded during 2005 – 06 and
this position of 2007 – 08 has remained the same upto the year 2009 – 10. The
posit
large
gove
show
of pe
traini
durin
deci
prov
imple
A
2.2.8
befo
seek
note
lodg
trans
tion, howev
e number o
ernment in
ws fall from
etitions und
ing progra
ng the per
des to co
iders with
ementation
APPEALS & CO
The Com
ore it during
informatio
d that 43.7
ed before
sfer, payme
ver, has inc
of applican
different d
the preced
der the Act
mmes and
riod. The
oncentrate
a view
n of the Act
OMPLAINTS
mmission, on
g the period
on from gov
75% of the
the Comm
ent of allow
creased su
nts seeking
departmen
ding years,
t by the pu
d interactiv
Commissio
more on
to remove
t. The positi
RECEIVED/D
(Fig No. 1
n the basis
d has mad
vernment d
petitions o
ission perta
wances, lea
11
bstantially
information
nts. The nu
which is an
blic author
ve sessions
on treats th
interactiv
e their do
on is given
ECIDED BY T
1 Ref. para
of appeal
de an analy
departmen
on which a
ain to matte
ave and re
during 201
n in respect
umber duri
n indication
rities. This m
conducte
his trend a
e sessions
oubts on
below:
HE COMMISS
2.2.7)
petitions a
ysis of the
nts under th
appeals / c
ers relating
lated matt
0 – 11, ma
t of recruitm
ing the ye
n of effecti
may be du
ed by the
as a health
with the
different
SION OVER T
and compla
issue on w
he Act.
complaints
to promotio
ters of the g
APPEALS/NTS SETTEDURING T
ainly due t
ment by th
ar of repo
ive handlin
e to severa
Commissio
hy sign an
informatio
aspects o
THE YEARS
aints lodge
hich citizen
It has bee
have bee
on, seniority
governmen
COMPLAIELED THE YEARS
o
e
rt
g
al
on
d
on
on
d
ns
n
en
y,
nt
emp
gove
prov
is be
NATI
2.2.9
citize
to th
appe
of he
enab
griev
the C
ultim
issue
2.2.1
traini
ployees. Ar
ernment de
ision of foo
low:
URE OF CO
The Com
ens are in w
heir ultimat
eal before
earing to ex
ble them to
vances per
Commission
mately been
during the
0 For the
ing to all
round 42%
epartments
d grains at
MPLAINTS &
mmission, d
wrong notio
e grievanc
the Comm
xplain the m
o understan
rtaining sup
n has noted
n settled, wh
e time of pro
e propagat
stake hold
of the ap
s, like elec
t ration shop
& APPEALS D
(Fig No. 2
during con
on that the
ces and wi
mission. The
main provis
nd that the
pply of info
d that case
hile attentio
oviding info
tion of the
ders, the C
12
peals are c
ctricity, wat
ps etc. The
DISPOSED B
2 Ref. para
nduct of h
Informatio
ith that ho
Commissio
sions of the
mandate
ormation by
es, genuine
on of the p
ormation to
e RTI Act, 2
ommission
concerning
ter supply,
data anal
BY COMMIS
2.2.8)
earing obs
n Commiss
ope they lo
on makes e
Act to the
of the Com
y the publi
e grievance
ublic autho
the compl
2005 and w
had taken
g services p
issue of ra
ysis on the
SION DURIN
serves that
ion will pro
odge comp
every effort
e informatio
mmission is
c authority
es of the c
orities are d
lainant / ap
with a view
n sincere i
provided b
ation card
above issu
NG 2012-13
t sometime
ovide redres
plaint or fil
at the tim
on seekers t
to settle th
y. Howeve
citizens hav
rawn on th
ppellant.
w to provid
initiatives t
by
s,
e
3
es
ss
e
e
o
e
er,
e
e
e
o
13
provide directions to the Public Authorities where the stakeholders were found to
be lacking in bringing improvement. The State Government has declared the
State Institute of Public Administration and Rural Development (SIPARD) as
Training Institute to train the government officials on provisions of RTI Act. The
Commission remains associated with SIPARD to provide intellectual support with
a view to educate all stake holders in the State. The Notification declaring
SIPARD as training institute for imparting training on RTI Act as issued by the
government in the official gazette of the State is placed at Annexure-IV.
Budget Provision made for Tripura Information Commission :-
2.2.11 Proposal for placing fund in the budget in consultation with the
Commission, is placed by the General Administration (A.R.) Department of the
State. The G.A.(AR) Department, being the Administrative Department of the
Commission, places the proposal before Finance Department. The budget
placed during the year is as below:
Budget for the Commission for 2012-13
Sl. No Item of Expenditure Rupees in Lakhs
1. i) Salaries ii) Wages
35.00 2.00
2. Non-salary i) Travel Expenses ii) Office Expenses iii) Electricity charges iv) Cost of fuel v) Hiring charge of pvt. vehicle
1.50 3.85 1.17 2.00 1.50
Total 47.02
(Table No. 1 Ref. para 2.2.11)
Secretariat of the Commission: In consistence with the provision as has
been laid down under section 16(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the State
14
Government has posted one TCS (Grade-I) Officer to function as Secretary to the
Commission. Besides, the Commission has been provided with the following
category of staff on deputation from other departments:-
SL No Designation Number 1. PS-II to the State Information Commissioner 1
2. P.S. –IV to the Secretary 1
3. PA-I to the State Information Commissioner 1
4. Section Officer 1
5. Head Assistant 1
6. L.D. Assistant 1
7. Driver 1
8. Group-D 6 (Table No. 2 Ref. para 2.2.11)
2.2.12 Website of the Commission (www.rtitripura.nic.in) contains all orders and
judgments of the Commission, as also the ‘cause list’ including the ‘archive of
the cause list’, as also the Act, Tripura RTI Rules and all guidelines issued for State
Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities and Public Authorities of the
State and instructions of the Commission for benefit of all stakeholders. The
‘online’ lodging of grievances and appeals is of great help to the citizens,
particularly the citizens living outside the State who seek information from state
government departments to avail the benefit without requiring to visit the State.
2.2.13 The Commission has designated its State Public Information Officer(SPIO)
and the First Appellate Authority(FAA). All information about the Commission are
placed in the public domain, in its website.
2.2.14 The website of the Commission also serves as a portal on RTI Act. It
contains list of SPIOs and FAAs and Public Authorities of all departments of the
State and keeps on updating the list in the event of transfer / superannuation of
15
SPIOs / FAAs / Public Authorities. A list containing names of SPIOs and FAAs of the
departments during the period is placed at Annexure - V.
2.2.15 As is required under section 4(1) of the Act, the Commission has made its
proactive disclosures on 16 items of information of the Commission which has
been placed in the Commission’s website (www.rtitripura.nic.in), to enable any
citizen to view details about the Commission.
2.2.16 The Bangla website of Tripura Information Commission with all such
documents in Bangla has become quite useful and popular and has been
supporting the citizens who are more comfortable to read and write in Bangla.
@@@@@@@
16
Chapter III
Implementation of RTI Act, 2005 in the State
3.1 A citizen-centric governance, now-a-days, is regarded as the heart of
good governance and hence, participation of citizens in governance is at the
root of a successful democracy. Citizens are now being encouraged to
participate in activities of government not only at the time of elections, but also
during usual day-to-day activities of government departments to implement
policies, projects and welfare schemes. Public involvement not only enhances
the quality of governance but also promotes transparency and accountability in
government functioning. The most powerful way to remain involved in decision
making activities of the government is through the right to access information
from the public authorities which manage public money or deliver public
services to citizens. The RTI Act, 2005 has empowered the citizens of India to
exercise the right to access information and know how public authorities
manage public funds and resources. The objective of providing information is not
only to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration,
but also to ensure participation of people in all matters related to governance.
The most key important stakeholders responsible for implementation of the Right
to Information Act, 2005 are the Public Authorities and the other key stakeholders
are the citizens, the civil society representatives and the NGOs. The State
Information Commission plays the role to ensure that the Act is implemented
effectively and no citizen is deprived of the right to have access to information
as has been guaranteed under the Act. It is, therefore, appropriate that
performance of the Public Authorities during the period is evaluated to derive
meaningful inferences to draw the future road map for improving performance
of the employees of the government and government controlled organisations
in the State.
3.2
have
of th
It ha
citize
show
situa
0100200300400500600700800900
100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100
Status of
e been rec
e RTI Act fr
s been obs
ens, as has
wn steady
tion in resp
A
2006‐07 20
f submission
eived by th
om the Pub
served that
s been rec
increase o
ect of five
APPLICATIO2006-20
007‐08 2008‐0
n of RTI retu
he Commis
blic Authori
t the numb
ceived by
over the ye
major depa
ONS RECE13 BY DEPA
(Fig No.
09 2009‐10
17
urns by dep
ssion on diff
ties have b
ber of petiti
the State
ears. The
artments an
IVED UNDEARTMENT O
3 Ref. para
2010‐11 2011
partments o
ferent aspe
been analyz
ions seekin
Governme
Commissio
nd the posi
ER RTI ACTOF EDUCA
a 3.2)
1‐12 2012‐13
of the State
ects of imp
zed in the C
g informati
ent departm
on has scr
tion is given
T FROM ATION
3
PETITIONINFORM
PETITION
PETITION
PETITIONINFORMINFORM
PETITION
: Reports, a
lementatio
Commission
ion from th
ments hav
utinized th
n as below:
NS REQUESTINGMATION RECEIVED
NS ALLOWED
NS REJECTED
NS REQUESTINGMATION SETTELEMATION PROVIDE
NS PENDING
as
on
n.
e
e
e
:
G FOR D
G FOR ED & ED
18
Status of applications received under the RTI Act from 2006 – 07 to 2012 – 13 by Department of Education
(Table No. 3 Ref. para 3.2)
The data shows sudden rise in request for information during the year
2010-11 which is due to queries of information seekers on selection of teachers
during the year. However, after the unusual upward trend, the number of
request for information has maintained normal increase.
The status in respect of Department of Health and Family Welfare is as
below:
YEAR
PETITIONS REQUESTING
FOR INFORMATION
RECEIVED
PETITIONS ALLOWED
PETITIONS REJECTED
PETITIONS REQUESTING FOR INFORMATION SETTELED &
INFORMATION PROVIDED
PETITIONS PENDING
2006‐07 54 54 0 54 3
2007‐08 213 213 0 213 0
2008‐09 99 99 0 99 0
2009‐10 112 112 0 112 0
2010‐11 2061 2061 0 2061 0
2011‐12 162 162 0 162 0
2012‐13 174 174 0 174 0
A
YEA
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2
APPLICATIO
Stat200
AR
PETREQU
INFORREC
‐07 ‐08 ‐09 ‐10 ‐11 ‐12 ‐13
2006‐07 2007‐
ONS RECEIUN
tus of appl06 – 07 to 2
TITIONS UESTING FOR RMATION CEIVED
36 27 116 9 37 230 240
‐08 2008‐09
VED BY HEDER RTI AC
(Fig No.
lications re2012 – 13 b
(Table No
PETITIONS ALLOWED
36
25 116 9
37 230 240
2009‐10 2010
19
EALTH & FACT FROM 2
4 Ref. para
eceived unby Departm
. 4 Ref. par
PETITIONSREJECTED
0
2 0 0
0 0 0
0‐11 2011‐12
AMILY WELF2006-2013
a 3.2)
nder the RTment of He
ra 3.2)
S D
PETITIREQUES
FOINFORMSETTEL
INFORMPROVI
36
25
116
9
37
230
240
2012‐13
FARE DEPA
TI Act fromalth & F.W
ONS STING R
MATION LED & MATION IDED
PEPE
6
5 6
7 0 0
PEIN
PE
PE
PEININ
PE
ARTMENT
m .
ETITIONS ENDING
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ETITIONS REQUESFORMATION RECE
ETITIONS ALLOWE
ETITIONS REJECTE
ETITIONS REQUESTFORMATION SETTFORMATION PRO
ETITIONS PENDING
STING FOR EIVED
ED
ED
TING FOR TELED & OVIDED
G
YEA
2006‐2007‐2008‐2009‐2010‐2011‐2012‐
APP
Status2
AR
PEREQ
INFORE
‐07 ‐08 ‐09 ‐10 ‐11 ‐12 ‐13
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
PLICATIONSUN
s of applic2006 – 07 to
ETITIONS QUESTING FOR
ORMATION ECEIVED
16 16 43 56 93
125 218
S RECEIVEDDER RTI AC
(Fig No.
cations reco 2012 – 13
(Table No. 5
PETITIONS ALLOWED
1515435083
120218
20
D BY PANCCT FROM 2
5 Ref. para
ceived und3 by Panch
5 Ref. para
PETITIONS REJECTED
1000000
CHAYAT DE2006-2013
a 3.2)
der the RTI hayat Dep
3.2)
PETITREQUESTINFORMSETTE
INFORMPROV
1000000
EPARTMENT
Act from partment
TIONS TING FOR MATION LED & MATION VIDED
15 15 43 50 83
120 218
PETITIONS INFORMAT
PETITIONS
PETITIONS
PETITIONS INFORMATINFORMAT
PETITIONS
T
PETITIONS PENDING
0106
1050
REQUESTING FORTION RECEIVED
ALLOWED
REJECTED
REQUESTING FOTION SETTELED & TION PROVIDED
PENDING
R
R
2012
Reve
2222222
0255075
100125150175200225250275300
The num
– 13. Sim
enue, as giv
AP
Statu
YEAR R
IN
2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13
2006‐07 20
mber of app
milar upwa
ven below
PPLICATIOUN
us of applic2006 – 07 t
PETITIONS REQUESTING
FOR NFORMATIONRECEIVED
36 27 116 9 37 230 270
007‐08 2008‐0
plications s
ard trend
w:
NS RECEIVDER RTI AC
(Fig No.
cations recto 2012 – 1
(Table No
N
PETITIONALLOWE
3625116937230270
09 2009‐10 2
21
seeking info
is also see
VED BY REVCT FROM 2
6 Ref. para
ceived un13 by Reve
. 6 Ref. par
NS ED
PETITIOREJECT
0200000
2010‐11 2011
ormation sh
en in respe
VENUE DEPA2006-2013
a 3.2)
der the RTIenue Depa
ra 3.2)
ONS ED
PETIREQU
FINFORSETT
INFORPRO
1
22
1‐12 2012‐13
hown quite
ect of Dep
ARTMENT
I Act from artment
TIONS UESTING FOR MATION ELED & MATION VIDED
PP
3625116937230270
PETITIOINFORM
PETITIO
PETITIO
PETITIOINFORMINFORM
PETITIO
e rise durin
partment o
PETITIONS PENDING
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NS REQUESTING MATION RECEIVED
NS ALLOWED
NS REJECTED
NS REQUESTING MATION SETTELEDMATION PROVIDE
NS PENDING
g
of
FOR D
FOR D & ED
appr
issue
dutie
the a
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
This is a
roaching th
s. Further,
es under the
act.
APPLICA
Stat2006 –
YEAR 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13
0
20
40
60
80
00
20
40
2006‐07
an indicatio
he departm
this is a pos
e Act and
TIONS RECUN
tus of appl– 07 to 201
PETITIONREQUESTIN
FOR INFORMATI
RECEIVED16 16 43 56 93 125 129
2007‐08 2
on that c
ments of the
sitive trend
the citizens
CEIVED BY UDER RTI AC
(Fig No.
lications re2 – 13 by U
(Table No
S NG
ON D
PETITIALLOW
1515435083120106
2008‐09 200
22
itizens are
e governm
to show th
s are encou
URBAN DEVCT FROM 2
7 Ref. para
eceived unUrban Dev
. 7 Ref. par
ONS WED
PETITREJEC
5 15 03 00 03 00 06 N
9‐10 2010‐1
aware o
ent to get
hat the SPIO
uraged to s
VELOPMEN2006-2013
a 3.2)
nder the RTvelopment
ra 3.2)
TIONS CTED
PREQINFS
INFP
100000il
1 2011‐12
f their righ
information
Os are disch
seek inform
NT DEPART
TI Act fromt Departme
PETITIONS QUESTING FORFORMATION ETTELED & FORMATION PROVIDED
1515435083120 129
2012‐13
ht and ar
n on variou
harging the
mation unde
TMENT
m ent
R
PETITIONPENDIN
010610523
PETITIONS REQINFORMATION
PETITIONS AL
PETITIONS RE
PETITIONS REFOR INFORMASETTELED & INPROVIDEDPETITIONS PE
re
us
eir
er
NS G
QUESTING FOR N RECEIVED
LLOWED
EJECTED
EQUESTING ATION NFORMATION
ENDING
throu
3.2.1
Act
Gove
Com
retur
petit
for b
3.2.2
the y
exam
large
petit
depa
Num
111122223
The upw
ughout the
. The Com
and status
ernment fo
mmission. D
rns from 45
ions. The l
y the Comm
. While ma
years has
mined the s
e public in
ions receiv
artments ar
mber of ap
0255075
100125150175200225250275300
2006‐07
ward trend o
years is ma
mmission ha
of their di
or analysis
During the p
5 departme
ist of the d
mission is gi
aking a not
broadly sh
status in re
nterface. A
ved under
re given as
plications o
2007‐08 200
of number
aintained.
s called for
sposal from
s and inc
period und
ents of the
department
iven at Ann
te that the
hown a ste
espect of fiv
A compara
r the Act
below:
received of the State
(Fig No. 8
08‐09 2009‐10
23
of informat
r reports on
m all depa
orporation
der referenc
e State ind
ts, furnishing
nexure – VI.
number of
eady increa
ve departm
ative analys
and their
under the e from 200
8 Ref. para
2010‐11 20
tion seekers
n receipt of
rtments an
in the A
ce the Com
dicating sta
g informatio
petitions fi
ase, the C
ments of th
sis of the
r disposal
Act by five06-2013
3.2.2)
011‐12 2012‐13
s from the
f petitions u
d organiza
Annual Rep
mmission h
atus of disp
on as has b
led under t
Commission
he governm
position in
by these
e major de
EDUCAT
HEALTH
REVENU
URBAN
PANCH
departmen
under the R
ations of th
port of th
as receive
posal of th
been calle
the Act ove
has closel
ment havin
respect o
five majo
epartment
TION (S)
H
UE
DEV. DPTT.
AYAT
nt
TI
e
e
d
e
d
er
ly
g
of
or
ts
Num
3.2.3
five
purp
Deve
colle
petit
2006
A
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
mber of ap
YEAR 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13
. The Com
major dep
pose, the in
elopment,
ected for t
ions seekin
-07 to 2012
Applications
0
50
00
50
00
50
00
50
00
2006‐07
plications o
EDUCAT(S) 54 213 270 240 2061162 174
mmission ha
partments o
nputs rece
Revenue a
the purpos
g informat
-13 is shown
s disposed u
2007‐08 200
received of the State
ION HE
1
1 22
(Table No.
as considere
of the Stat
eived from
and Educa
e shows a
ion for all t
n as below
under the Ainterface
(Fig No. 9
08‐09 2009‐10
24
under the e from 200
ALTH RE3627126937230240 8 Ref. para
ed disposa
te having
the depa
ation (Scho
an upward
the departm
:
ct from 5 de since 2006
9 Ref. para
0 2010‐11 20
Act by five06-2013
EVENUEU
3627116937230270
a 3.2.2)
l of petition
large pub
artment of
ool) were c
trend in r
ments. The
epartments6-2013
3.2.3)
011‐12 2012‐1
e major de
RBAN DEV. DPTT. 1616435693125129
ns under th
lic interfac
Forest, He
considered
respect of
e overall po
having larg
13
ED
UR
RE
HE
PA
epartment
PANCHAYAT1616435693125218
e RTI Act b
ce. For th
ealth, Urba
. The dat
number o
osition sinc
ge public
DUCATION (S)
RBAN DEV. DEP
EVENUE
EALTH
ANCHAYAT
ts
T
by
e
n
a
of
e
PT.
A
3.2.4
has
depa
A
257
101215172022252730
Applications
YEAR 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13
. The statu
been anal
artments ar
Applications
inte
0255075002550750025507500
s disposed u
EDUCATIO(S) 54 213 99 112 2061 162 174
us of dispos
lysed in the
re as given
s received uerface vis-à-
under the Ainterface
ON
URBADEVDEPT
1515435083120129
(Table No.
al of reque
e Commis
below:
under the Ac-vis their sta
(Fig No. 10
25
ct from 5 de since 2006
AN V. T. REVENU
3625116937
0 2309 270 9 Ref. para
est for info
ssion. The
ct from 5 deatus of dispo
0 Ref. para
epartments6-2013
UE HEALTH3625116937230240
a 3.2.3)
rmation by
position in
epartments osal during
3.2.4)
having larg
H PANCHA15 15 43 50 83 120218
y different d
respect o
having larg 2012-2013
ge public
AYAT
0 8
department
f five majo
ge public
REQUESTINFORMA
INFORMAPROVIDED
REQUEST PENDING
ts
or
FOR TION
ATION D
26
Status of applications received under the Act from 5 departments having large public interface vis-à-vis their status of disposal during 2012-2013
(Table No. 10 Ref. para 3.2.4)
3.2.5. The Commission finds that four of the above five departments have kept
no request for information pending during the year. However, out of 129 requests
for information, Department of Urban Development had 23 requests pending
during the period.
3.2.6. Further analysis of data pertaining to the Department of Forest reveals
that while during the year 2010 – 11 only 54 petitions have been received by the
department, in 2012 – 13 as many as 135 applications seeking various information
have been received by the Department of Forests. A statement showing the
analysis of data covering the period from 2006-07 to 2012-13 as has been
prepared, is placed in the tabular form below:
APPLICATIONS UNDER RTI ACT RECEIVED AND DECIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST FROM 2006-2012
(Table No. 11 Ref. para 3.2.6)
NAME OF DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
INFORMATION PROVIDED
REQUEST PENDING
EDUCATION(S) 174 174 0 URBAN DEVELOPMENT 129 106 23 REVENUE 270 270 0 HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
240 240 0
PANCHAYAT 218 218 0
YEAR REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION RECEIVED
REQUEST ALLOWED
REQUEST REJECTED
REQUEST SETTELED &
INFORMATION PROVIDED
REQUEST PENDIN
G
2006-07 42 40 4 38 0 2007-08 97 87 4 87 6 2008-09 126 117 0 117 9 2009-10 44 43 0 43 1 2010-11 54 52 0 52 2 2011-12 143 133 0 133 10
2012-13 135 130 0 135 5
An
3.2.7
Heal
subst
were
as m
durin
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
analysis of
. The Com
th and no
tantially du
e received
many as 240
ng 2012 – 13
2006‐07 2
status of apby De
mmission ha
oted that
uring the pe
by the dep
0 petitions
3. The data
007‐08 2008
pplicationsepartment o
(Fig No. 11
as scrutinize
the numb
eriod unde
partment fro
were rece
a has been
8‐09 2009‐1
27
seeking Inof Forest fro
Ref. para 3.
ed the data
ber of info
r report du
om the info
eived by th
scrutinized
10 2010‐11
formation aom 2006-201
.2.6)
a furnished
ormation s
ring 2012 -
ormation se
he Departm
and the st
2011‐12 2
as have be12
by the De
eekers has
13. While
eekers on va
ment of He
atus is belo
2012‐13
en receive
partment o
s increase
37 petition
arious issue
alth & F. W
ow:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
REQUEST ALLOW
REQUEST REJEC
REQUEST SETTEINFORMATION PROVIDED
REQUEST PEND
d
of
d
ns
s,
W.
RECEIVED
WED
CTED
ELED &
ING
YE
200200200820092010201201
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2
APPL
STATU
AR PETREQNGINFOTI
REC
6‐07 37‐08 28‐09 19‐10 0‐11 31‐12 22‐13 2
2006‐07 20072006‐07 2007
ICATIONS FAMILY WE
US OF APPLFAMILY WE
TITION QUESTI FOR ORMAION EIVED
PEREQ
AL
36 27 116 9 37 230 240
7‐08 2008‐097‐08 2008‐09
UNDER THEELFARE DEP
(Fig No. 12
LICATIONSELFARE DEP
(Table No. 1
ETITION QUESTING FOR
LLOWED
36 25 116 9 37 230 240
9 2009‐109 2009‐10
28
E ACT RECPARTMENT
2 Ref. para
S UNDER THPARTMENT
12 Ref. par
PETITION REQUESTIN
FOR REJECTED
0 2 0 0 0 0 0
2010‐11 22010‐11 2
EIVED BY H FROM 200
a 3.2.7)
HE ACT REC FROM 200
ra 3.2.7)
G PETIT
REQUESFOR SET
&INFORMPROV
3625119372324
2011‐12 20122011‐12 2012
HEALTH & 06-2013
CEIVED BY 06-2013
TION STING TTELED & MATION IDED
PRE
P
6 5 6 7 0 40
2‐13
PETIINFO
PETIALLO
PETIREJE
PETISETTPRO
PETIPEN
2‐13
PETIINFO
PETIALLO
PETIREJE
PETISETTPRO
PETIPEN
HEALTH &
PETITION QUESTING FOR
PENDING
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TION REQUESTINORMATION RECEIV
TION REQUESTINOWED
TION REQUESTINECTED
TION REQUESTINTELED & INFORMAVIDED
TION REQUESTINDING
TION REQUESTINORMATION RECEIV
TION REQUESTINOWED
TION REQUESTINECTED
TION REQUESTINTELED & INFORMAVIDED
TION REQUESTINDING
G FOR VED
G FOR
G FOR
G FOR ATION
G FOR
G FOR VED
G FOR
G FOR
G FOR ATION
G FOR
3.2.8
the D
the y
07 o
rece
Depa
tabu
YEA
200
200
200200201201
201
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
20
. The Com
Departmen
years have
nly 15 pet
ived 129 p
artment of
ular form is g
S
S
AR
RIN
06‐07
07‐08
08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12
12‐13
006‐07 2007
mmission ha
nt of Urban
shown a ve
itions unde
petitions se
Urban Dev
given below
STATUS APPLIDEPART
STATUS APPLIDEPART
REQUEST FOR NFORMATION RECEIVED
16
16
43 56 93 125
129
7‐08 2008‐0
s also cons
Developme
ery steady
er the Act
eeking var
velopment
w:
ICATIONS RETMENT UNDE
(Fig No. 13
ICATIONS RETMENT UNDE
(Table No. 1
REQUEST ALLOWED
15
15
43 50 83 120
129
09 2009‐10
29
sidered the
ent and no
and consis
have been
rious inform
during 2012
ECEIVED BY UER RTI ACT FR
3 Ref. para
ECEIVED BY UER RTI ACT FR
13 Ref. par
REQUEST REJECTED
1
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 2010‐11
data as ha
oted that nu
stent rise. W
n received
mation by
2 – 13. The
URBAN DEVELROM 2006-20
a 3.2.8)
URBAN DEVELROM 2006-20
ra 3.2.8)
REQU
SETTELINFORMPROVI
15
15
43508312
10
2011‐12
as been re
umber of p
While in the
d, the depa
the citizen
e data prep
LOPMENT 013
LOPMENT 013
UEST LED & MATION IDED 5
5
3 0 3 0
6
2012‐13
ceived from
etitions ove
year 2006
artment ha
ns from th
pared in th
REQUEST PENDING
0
1
0 6 10 5
23
PETITION REQUFOR INFORMATRECEIVED
PETITION REQUFOR ALLOWED
PETITION REQUFOR REJECTED
PETITION REQUFOR SETTELED &INFORMATION PROVIDED
PETITION REQUFOR PENDING
m
er
–
as
e
e
UESTING TION
UESTING
UESTING
UESTING &
UESTING
30
3.2.9. The Commission has also analysed the position in respect of applications
received under the Act by five departments having large public interface as
identified vis-à-vis their status of disposal during 2012 – 13. The position is given
below:
Analysis of petitions received under the Act by 5 departments having large public interface as identified vis-à-vis their status of disposal during
2012-13
(Fig No. 14 Ref. para 3.2.9)
Analysis of petitions received under the Act by 5 departments having large public interface as identified vis-à-vis their status of disposal during
2012-13
Name Of
Departments YEAR PETITIONS RECIVED PETITION DISPOSED
Directorate Of Health Service
2012-13 248 248
Directorate Of Panchayats
2012-13 218 218
Urban Development Department
2012-13 129 106
School Education Department
2012-13 174 174
TPSC 2012-13 85 85 (Table No. 14 Ref. para 3.2.9)
Directorate Of Health ServiceDirectorate Of PanchayatsUrban Development DepartmentSchool Education DepartmentTripura Public Service Comm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
31
3.2.10. The Commission has analysed variety aspects of the appeals and
complaints as have been lodged during the period and has noted that citizens
living in urban areas are mainly seeking information under the RTI Act and are
approaching the Commission for redress of their grievances due to non receipt
of information from the public authorities. The result is given below:
RESIDENTS OF RURAL/URBAN AREAS WHO HAVE
APPROACHED THE COMMISSION DURING 2012-13
(Fig No. 15 Ref. para 3.2.10)
3.2.11 Considering it to be result of large number of training and interactive
programmes by the Commission as also publication of several Guide / booklets
by the Commission for effective implementation of the act by the public
authorities. This is evident from the position that, while number of applications
seeking information under the Act from the department has increased
substantially, number of complaints / second appeals before the Commission
has fallen.
22% of the applications received from the rural areas of the state.
78% of the applications received from the urban areas of the state.
32
3.2.12 Collection of revenue towards supply of information to petitioners does not
give any encouraging result. Information seekers are required to pay @ Rs.2/-
per page for the documents they are provided with from the departments apart
from initial application fees of Rs.10/- per application. Tripura is one of the states
that has not limited the items of information are being sought under one
application. The information seekers receive the documents, more often
voluminous documents from the departments, from the departments through
ordinary and also registered posts, for which they are not required to pay any
postal charges. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005, the State Public Information
Officers(SPIOs) are required to provide information within 30 days from the date
of receipt of the application seeking information. However, when a Public
Information Officer fails to provide information sought within the statutory period
of 30 days, the information is to be provided free of cost as provided under
Section 7(6) of RTI Act. Apart from this, petitioners falling under the BPL
categories are not require to pay any fees for any number of items. The
Commission has noted that more often the Public Information Officers do not
initiate any action towards supply of information within the statutory period and
voluminous documents free of cost.
All these have resulted in poor collection of revenue by the departments
and charges towards stationeries used for supply of information cannot be
recovered. The Commission has collected all such information in respect of
collection of revenues during the year below:
33
Status of fees collected by the public authorities under various department since 2005-06 to 2012-13
Sl. No
.
Name of Department (Public Authorities)
Since
Fee Collected Section 6(1)
Fee Collected Section 7(1)
1 Revenue Department 33930 24629 2 Education (School) 26640 23861 3 Tripura Public Service Commission 16190 4210 4 Health Department 6020 13848 5 Urban Development Department 3710 2999 6 Forest Deptt. 4784 29387 7 Education (Higher) 4120 4198
8 General Administration (P&T) Department 2390 12326
9 Industries & Commerce 1650 4221 10 Home (Police) Department 1800 1414 11 Finance Department 2200 5976
12 General Administration (AR) Department 1200 1216
13 Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer’s Affairs 1190 3283
14 Education Social 950 1819 15 Education ( SW&SE) 950 1819 16 Agriculture Department 1450 2422 17 Director General of Police 910 554 18 Law Department 1040 3042 19 Panchayet 1577 10222 20 Guwahati High Court 780 2642 21 ICAT Department 490 2168 22 T.W. Deptt. 476 717 23 Tripura Information Commission 500 851 24 P W Department 780 970 25 Tripura Gramin Bank 400 00 26 ICFAI University 450 60 27 Home (Jail) Department 470 886 28 C M Secretariat 570 14 29 ARDD 460 1864 30 Co-Operative Dept. 500 1004 31 Assembly Secretariat 300 1815 32 Transport Department 480 90 33 Science & Technology Department 560 572
34 General Administration (SA) Department 290 180
35 Education (YA&S) 160 4 36 TBSE 150 0
37 General Administration (C&C) Department 160 254
38 Fisheries Department 200 1013 39 Handloom & Handicraft Dept. 70 0 40 Labour Deptt. 60 0 41 Election Department 170 76
42 F.W.43 Tripu44 Plan
45 GenDep
COLLECT
COLLECT
. & P.M ura State Conning Deptt. neral Adpartment
Grand
NAME
UR
REV
(T
ION OF FEES
ION OF FEES
ooperative B ministration
d Total
E OF DEPARTM
REV DEPTT
EDU(S)
TPSC
HEALTH DPTT
RBAN DEV. DP
V DEPTT ED
Table No. 15
S BY 5 DEPAR
(Fig No. 16
S BY 5 DEPAR
(Table
ank Ltd.
(P&S)
MENTS
T
PTT
U(S)TPS
34
Ref. para 3
RTMENTS UND
6 Ref. para
RTMENTS UND
No. 16 Ref
40 50 20
80
10744
SCHEALTH
3.2.12)
DER RTI ACT
3.2.12)
DER RTI ACT
. para 3.2.12
40
H DPTTURBAN D
SINCE 2006-
SINCE 2006-
2)
13
FEES COLLEC
52084
42368
18984
13214
6709
DEV. DPTT
-2012
-2012
177 00 00
54
31094
CTED
35
Chapter IV
Observations and Recommendations
4.1 Tripura Information Commission in its Annual Reports for the years 2005 -06,
2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 had made some
observations and had offered several recommendations to the State
Government for early implementation. Although, the State Government has
taken some steps for implementation of some of the recommendations, major
recommendations of the Commission are yet to be implemented. Some of the
recommendations that have been made are to be implemented by the Central
Government, while the implementation of the rest are the obligation of the State
Government. The Commission, therefore, considers it expedient to reiterate
those unattended recommendations in this report also.
4.2 Section 19(7) of the right to Information Act, 2005 stipulates that the
decision of the Information Commission shall be binding. The Act, however, is
silent about the action to be contemplated in case there is non-compliance.
There are instances of non-compliances of the orders passed earlier by the
Commission. Therefore, it is suggested that a new sub-section to the Section 20
of the Act needs to be inserted empowering the Commission to enforce its
decisions including penalizing the head of the Public Authority for continued
contempt of its orders. The amount of penalty imposed or compensation
awarded by the Commission should be made recoverable as an arrear of land
revenue. It is, therefore, suggested that a separate sub-section of Section 20
may be added for the purpose.
4.2.1 Systemic Reforms in Record Management: Indexing of record is an
integral part to locate important information either to meet the needs of the
citizens or even for quick retrieval of records for efficient office functioning. In
such a situation, if the managing and indexing of records are neglected, it would
36
not be possible to effectively implement access to information to the citizen as
contemplated in the Act. It is, therefore, critical to put a strong procedure along
with some sound guidelines in place for implementation of a useful record
management system. It is not that the record keeping system is not prevailing in
the government departments, but advancement towards e-governance having
increased use of computers for strong data base as also for dissemination of
information with a gradual shift to automated environment would ensure overall
efficiency in the present generation of transparent governance. This Commission
has developed a Record Management Information System(RMIS) with technical
support from the Department of IT and has successfully introduced the System for
efficient management of its records including both current and closed files. The
Commission has requested the State Government to introduce such system after
taking support from the NIC to customize the System for specific departments to
suit requirement of individual departments of the government. Digitization of file
index is an immediate requirement in all departments of the government.
However, no department has as yet attempted any such action towards
digitization of file index or adopting any of the state of the art record
management system.
4.2.2 So far, the Department of Information Technology with assistance of the
Ministry of Communication has set up Community Information Centres in most of
the Block Headquarters in the Stare. Considering the usefulness of those centres,
the State Government has decided to further increase coverage of net
connection upto panchayat level in rural Tripura to disseminate development
based information to the citizens in rural and remote areas of the State. Tripura
Information Commission suggests the State Government to extend the facility to
the citizens to have access to information under the provisions of the Act.
4.2.3 The Commission feels urgent need for placing adequate budgetary
support for all the public authorities to enable those departments to create
framework for setting up of an efficient record management system as without a
sound record management system, it would lead to serious problems for the
37
departments to provide requested information to the citizens in compliance with
the provisions of the Act. This modernization of the system would be a one-time
job that would bring efficiency and methodical arrangement of office
documents to reduce hardship of public authorities and would have far
reaching effect in administration towards its endeavour to provide good
governance to citizens.
4.2.4 The Commission has examined the ‘Record Retention Schedule’ of
Records Common to All Departments’ published on 06-04-2000 by the General
Administration(A.R.) Department, Government of Tripura, and is of the view that
this schedule does not cover management and maintenance of all public
records created by many agencies of the government, public sector
undertakings, statutory bodies, corporations and commissions. The Commission
has noticed that retention period of files and many important issues like
acquisition of private land for government projects etc. have not been discussed
in the Record Retention Schedule of the government nor the method of
destruction of very old records have been spelled out. Moreover, it is only an
executive instruction for retention of records without having any legal cover for
the responsibilities of the record creating agencies with respect to arrangement,
management, custody, deposit and preservation of public records. The above
instructions also do not speak anything about the procedure as to how the
destruction of public records is to be made and at what level such records
would be decided to be old and obsolete. The Commission, therefore, after
considering the above schedule for record retention to be inadequate,
recommend for revision of the Record Retention Schedule of the State to
prepare an elaborate Record Retention Schedule to incorporate all important
categories of files, after issuing clear directions towards process of weeding out
of very old files spelling out levels at which such decisions would be taken.
4.2.5 The Commission further recommends that the departments may formulate
their Record Retention Schedule specific to their departments as every issue of a
department is typical to the department concerned and only individual
38
departments would be in a position to formulate such Schedule with a view to
decide retention period to each category of files. For example, keeping
medical record of a patient in government hospitals is a typical question of the
Department of Health, which would be decided along with the retention period
of such files, by the Department of Health only.
4.2.5 The Public Records Act, 1993 enacted by the Parliament came into force
on 01-03-1995 to regulate the management, administration and preservation of
public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administration, Public
Sector Undertakings, Statutory bodies, Corporations, Commissions and
Committees constituted by the Central Government or Union Territory
Administration and the matter connected therewith and incidental thereto
needs to be examined by the Administrative Reforms Department of the State to
adopt similar methods to formulate such Act for the State for efficient
management of records in the State. For carrying out the purposes of the Act,
the Central Government has also framed the Public Records Rules, 1997, which
include provisions for destruction of public records. This Commission, therefore,
advises the G.A.(A.R.) of the State to come forward and take immediate
necessary steps for taking actions on similar lines for regulating management,
administration and preservation of public records of the government, Public
Sector Undertakings, Statutory bodies, Corporations, Commissions and
Committees constituted by the Government of Tripura and the matter
connected therewith and incidental thereto.
4.3 Use of E-Governance: The use of e-governance for strengthening the RTI
implementation is mutually beneficial. In fact, the RTI Act is India’s first law and
perhaps the only law that obliges the Government as provided under section
4(1)(a) of the Act to take up e-governance. Digitization of important document
of the departments is considered vital to upload as much information in the
website to reduce the number of petitions seeking information on various issues
of the department and also to proactively put information on the public domain
39
in order to bring transparency in the activities of the department as also to
comply with the provisions of the Act.
4.4 RTI Education: The Commission does not consider conducting training
programmes and workshops for the information providers and development of
public awareness as adequate and the only means of education on RTI. In order
to achieve the goal as has been envisaged in the Act, education should be
spread over among the masses and for the purpose it is considered necessary to
incorporate the RTI Act in the curriculum in schools and colleges as a long term
measure. The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that the RTI Act could be
included as a subject at the degree and secondary levels while at the
elementary levels, one page information on RTI Act can be provided in an
appropriate place of the text books to draw the attention of the teachers and
the guardians of the children and other readers. However, the text needs to be
standardized to ensure that there is no misinterpretation at any stage. The task
for preparation of materials and their inclusion in the text books may be
entrusted upon the University or the colleges, Tripura Board of Secondary
Education for the secondary and NCERT / SCERT for the elementary levels. The
State Government should, therefore, come forward with a specific decision in
the matter.
4.5 Capacity building and training: The Commission has already published a
handbook containing instructions for State Public Information Officers, First
Appellate Authorities and Public Authorities on the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.
Further guidelines may also be prepared and published by the State
Government as required under section 26(2) of the Act. The State Government
is required to develop and organize educational programmes to advance
understanding of the public, in particular, of the disadvantaged communities to
educate them on exercise of the rights contemplated under the Act. Tripura
Information Commission may remain associated to explain the provisions of the
Act. The State Government is also required to train the SPIOs, the FAAs and other
40
stake holders and produce relevant training materials for use of the Public
Authorities themselves. For the purpose, materials prepared by Tripura
Information Commission may be used. Further, the State Government may
extend adequate financial support and provide other resources to the public
authorities to organize such capacity building programmes for the information
providers.
4.6 Support to the Tripura Information Commission: For efficient and smooth
functioning of Tripura Information Commission, the State Government may
consider to extend the following support to the Commission on priority:-
(i) Required number of posts at appropriate levels may be created for Tripura
Information Commission with a view to get officials of special aptitude as
required in the Commission. As required under section 16(6) of the Act, rules
prescribing terms and conditions of services of the employees of the
Commission are also to be framed.
(ii) Independence of the State Information Commission and effective discharge
of its duties and responsibilities cannot be guaranteed without granting full
financial and administrative autonomy.
(iii) Tripura Information Commission during conduct of hearing of appeals and
complaints has observed that the SPIOs are generally not attentive to the
time limit to provide information to the citizens provided under the Act. More
often, when the information seekers approach the Commission, and the
Commission issues summons, the SPIOs attempt the petitions and the
information is provided after the statutory period of 30(thirty) days or after
the direction to provide information is issued by the Commission. In the
process the information seekers, though suffer from delay in receiving
information, get the benefit of section 7(6) of the Act and are not required to
pay the fees towards cost of documents which are being supplied by the
government departments. This has resulted free supply of information and
41
loss of government revenue due to casual approach of some State
Information Officers.
The government has been incurring expenditure in the form of providing
information to the citizen, by sending information to the information seekers
through posts, more often by registered post without charging any fees from
them. Expenditure is also being incurred for training and seminars to educate
all stakeholders on the provisions of the Act. The authorities responsible to
provide information need to ensure that cost of providing information in the
form of printing government documents are realized and deposited to
government exchequer.
(iv) The Commission observes that junior most officers and sometimes non-
gazetted staff are designated as the SPIOs, who are required to take the
responsibility of information providers, over and above their designated
duty. Such officers more often show reluctance in dealing with the
applications of the citizens filed under the RTI Act with sincerity and proper
attitude. Moreover, at times these officials commit serious mistakes. The
Commission, however, expresses its satisfaction that the government has
designated the SPIOs and the FAAs promptly causing no delay in filling up
of these positions in the event of transfer / retirement / leave or for any
other reason the positions fall vacant.
(v) The information seekers in Tripura enjoy better facilities than many other
States as they are allowed to request for many items of information in one
petition and are not required to pay for official dispatch of information
through ordinary / registered post by the government departments. The
decisions from the Commission are also being received by them within one
month of lodging of their complaint or filing of the appeal, free of cost in
most transparent manner.
42
4.7.1 From its experience, the Commission has noted that the role of the First
Appellate Authority(FAA) has proved to be quite a weak link in the hierarchy of
supply of information to the citizens which fall short of the expectation envisaged
in the Act. The FAAs take very little care to stick to the time frame provided in
the Act to decide the first appeals. In large number of appeals, the FAAs do not
give any hearing to the appellants and the SPIOs, nor do they record any order
or judgment on the appeals and the trend of decisions of these first appeals are
’upholding’ of decisions of the SPIOs which are mostly conveyed verbally to the
SPIOs. This has resulted an attitude of avoiding the FAAs by the information
seekers displaying a situation of less faith on delivery of justice from that level.
4.7.2 The civil society organizations in the State are yet to make their presence
felt in implementation of the RTI Act. The Commission has observed that people
often confuse between redressal of grievances and seeking of information. Such
organizations have a big role to play to educate people to differentiate
between redress of grievances and receipt of information and the ways to make
use of the provisions of the Act for welfare of the society.
4.7.3 The Commission has further noted that some information seekers declared
themselves as RTI activists while they approach the Commission repeatedly for
information for their personal benefit only. There are quite a number of
petitioners who file their complaints with an intention to put the Public Authority
in difficulty or to harass the officials of the department using RTI as an weapon to
attack with.
4.7.4 The most of the information seekers prefer petitions before the
government departments enquiring about their promotions, status of
departmental proceedings, ACR recordings and pay fixations etc. Next comes
the petitions regarding shortcomings or defects in public service delivery and
activities of some departments causing detriment to his interest. The other
information sought are related to land allotment, implementation of different
43
developmental projects of the government and the selection of beneficiaries
etc. in implementation of welfare schemes of the government.
@@@@@@@
44
Annexure – I (Ref. para 1.4 of Chapter-I)
APPENDIX - IV
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION(ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS) DEPARTMENT
NoF.3(5)-GA(AR)/2005/P-III Dated, Agartala the 10th October, 2005
NOTIFICATION In pursuance of Section 15(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Governor is please to decide that the Tripura Information Commission shall consist of one State Chief Information Commissioner and one State Information Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. 2. The above decision take immediate effect. By order of the Governor,
Sd/- (S. C. Das)
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Tripura
45
Annexure – II (Ref. para 1.13 of Chapter-I)
GUIDELINES FOR FUNCTIONING OF TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION
With a view to carry out its day to day function effectively and to remove
any doubt in respect of requirements of information seekers to approach the
Commission for redress of their grievances in cases of failure to receive the
information sought for, the Commission has prepared following guidelines to
place on record the requirements of each levels.
Contents of appeal or complaint:-
1) An appeal or a complaint to the Commission shall contain the following
information, namely:-
i) name, address, contact number, if any and other particulars of the
appellant or complainant, as the case may be.
ii) name and address of the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) and
the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Department/Organization
against whom a complaint is made under Section 18 of the Act, and
second Appeal under Section 19(2) of the Act.
iii) particulars of the decision or order, if any, including its number and the
date when it was pronounced, and against which the appeal is
preferred;
iv) brief facts leading to the appeal or the complaint;
v) if the appeal or complaint is preferred against refusal or deemed
refusal of the information, the particulars of the application, including
number and date and name and address of the State Public
Information Officer to whom the application was made and name
46
and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the appeal
was filed;
vi) prayer or relief sought;
vii) grounds for the prayer or relief;
viii) verification by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be;
and
ix) any other information which may be deemed as necessary and
helpful for the Commission to decide the appeal or complaint.
2) The contents of the complaint shall be in the same form as prescribed for
the appeal with such changes as may be deemed necessary or appropriate.
Documents to accompany appeal or complaint:
Every appeal or complaint made to the Commission shall be
accompanied by self attested copies/photocopies of the following documents,
namely:-
i) The RTI application submitted before the SPIO/Assistant SPIO along
with documentary proof as regards payment of fee under the RTI Act;
ii) The order, or decision or response, if any, from the SPIO to whom the
application under the RTI Act was submitted.
iii) The first appeal submitted before the First Appellate Authority with
documentary proof of filing the first appeal.
iv) The orders or decision or response, if any, from the First Appellate
Authority against which the appeal or complaint is being preferred;
v) The documents relied upon and referred to in the appeal or
complaint;
vi) An index of the documents referred to in the appeal or complaint;
and
47
vii) A list of dates briefly indicating in chronological order the progress of
the matter up to the date of filing the appeal or complaint may be
placed at the top of the documents filed.
Presentation and scrutiny of appeal or complaint:
1) The Secretary of the Commission shall receive any second appeal or
complaint petition addressed to the Commission and ensure that:-
a) the appeal or the complaint, as the case may be, is submitted in
prescribed format;
b) that all its contents are duly verified by the appellant or the complainant,
as the case may be;
c) that the appeal or the complaint is in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005
and Tripura Right To Information Rules, 2008.
2) The Secretary of the Commission shall also ensure that the appeal or the
complaint petition contains copies of all required documents such as:
a) RTI application;
b) Receipt of the RTI application by the office of the SPIO;
c) Proof in respect of payment of fees;
d) Decision/reply etc. from the SPIO / FAA if any;
e) Appeal to the First Appellate Authority, in case of second appeal;
3) The Secretary of the Commission shall scrutinize every appeal/complaint
as would be received and will ensure-
a) that the appeal or the complaint petition is duly verified and the required
documents are submitted;
48
b) that all the documents annexed are duly page marked and attested by
the appellant or the complainant;
c) That the copies of the documents filed and submitted are clear, distinct
and legible;
d) That the appeal is made before the Commission within ninety days from
the date on which decision/order of the FAA have been made or was
actually received by the petitioner and also may receive the appeal after
ninety days if the Commission is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing the appeal.
4) The Secretary of the Commission will place before the Commission any
such appeal or the complaint if it does not meet the requirement or conform to
the standard as set out above for returning such petitions to the appellant /
complaint for re-submission in proper form.
5) The Commission may reject any such appeal or complaint petition on the
following grounds:-
a) if it is time-barred;
b) if it is otherwise inadmissible;
c) if it is not in accordance with the Tripura RTI Rules, 2008.
Provided that no such appeal or complaint shall be rejected by the
Commission unless the concerned appellant or the complainant is given an
opportunity of being heard.
The decision of the Commission on the issue of maintainability of an
appeal or a complaint shall be final.
6) All the appeal petitions and complaints of the citizens, which have not
been rejected or returned as above and which have been found in order shall
be registered and a specific number will be allocated.
49
7) The Secretary of the Commission or any other officer authorized by him
shall endorse on every appeal or complaint the date on which it is presented.
8) The appeals and complaints shall bear separate serial numbers so that
they can be easily identified under separate heads.
9) If any appeal or complaint is found to be defective and the defect, there
noticed is formal in nature, the Secretary of the Commission may allow the
appellant or complainant to rectify the same in his presence or may allow five
days time to rectify the defect. If the appeal or complaint has been received by
post and found to be defective, the Secretary of the Commission may
communicate the defect (s) to the appellant or complainant and allow him/her
two weeks time from the date of receipt of the communication from the
Secretary of the Commission to rectify the defects.
10) If the appellant or complainant fails to rectify the defects within the time
allowed in clause above, the appeal or complaint shall be deemed to have
been withdrawn.
11) An appeal or complaint which is not in order and is defective or is not
complete is liable to be rejected.
On all such conditions the Secretary of the Commission shall place the
matter before the Commission for direction to allow an appellant or
complainant to file a fresh appeal or complaint in compliance with the
requirements as contained vide para 5 above.
12) Filing of Counter Statement by the State Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority:
After receipt of a copy of the appeal or complaint, the State Public
Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority or the Public Authority shall file
50
counter statement along with documents, if any, pertaining to the appeal /
complaint. A copy of the counter statement (s) so filed shall be served to the
appellant or complainant by the SPIO, the First Appellate Authority or the Public
Authority, as the case may be.
13) Posting of appeal or complaint before the Information Commissioner:
i) An appeal or a complaint, or a class or categories of appeals or
complaints, shall be heard by a Single Bench consisting of one
Information Commissioner or a Division Bench of the Chief Information
Commissioner and the Information Commission as would be decided
by the Chief Information Commissioner by a special or general order
issued for this purpose from time to time.
ii) Where in the course of the hearing of an appeal or complaint or other
proceeding before a Single Information Commissioner, the
Commissioner considers that the matter should be dealt with by a
Division or Full Bench of Chief Information Commissioner and the
Information Commissioner, he/she shall refer the matter to the Chief
Information Commissioner who may thereupon decide the matter
accordingly for disposal of the matter.
14) Personal presence of the appellant or complainant:
i) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be
informed of the date of hearing at least seven clear days before that
date except in cases involving life or liberty where a shorter notice
may be given.
ii) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may at his /
her discretion be present in person or through his / her duly authorized
51
representative at the time of hearing of the appeal or complaint by
the Commission.
iii) Where the Commission is satisfied that circumstances exist due to
which the appellant or the complainant is being prevented from
attending the hearing of the Commission, the Commission may afford
the appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, another
opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any
other appropriate action as it may deem fit.
iv) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the
assistance of any authorized person while presenting his case before
the Commission and the person representing him may / may not be a
legal practitioner.
v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be
present either personally or through his duly authorized representative
during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before the Commission,
the Commission may pronounce its decision or order in the matter of
on merit in his / her absence.
15) Date of hearing to be notified:
The Commission shall notify the parties the date, time and place of
hearing of the appeal or complaint through issue of notice to be sent by post to
the address as given by the appellant or the complainant. Moreover, the Cause
List will be displayed at the website www.rtitripura.nic.in of the Commission. The
website of the Commission will display ‘Archive of Cause List’ of the Commission.
16) Adjournment of Hearing:
The appellant or the complainant or any of the respondents may, on
grounds of reasonable justification, make an application for adjournment of
the hearing. The Commission after hearing the case may consider such
application and issue appropriate directions as it deems fit.
17) Evidence before the Commission:
52
In deciding an appeal or a complaint, the Commission may:-
i) receive oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from
concerned person or persons;
ii) persue or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof;
iii) inquire through authorized officer further details or facts;
iv) examine or hear in person or receive evidence on affidavit from State
Public Information Officer, State Assistant Public Information Officer or
such senior officer who decided the first appeal or such person or
persons against whom the complaint is made as the case may be; or
v) examine or hear or receive evidence on affidavit from a third party, or
an intervener or any other person or persons, whose evidence is
considered necessary or relevant by the Commission.
18) Issue of summons: Summons to the parties or to the witnesses for appearance or for
production of documents or records or things shall be issued by the Secretary of
the Commission under the authority of the Commission, and it shall be in such
form as has been prescribed by the Commission.
19) Award of costs by the Commission:
The Commission may impose any of the penalties provided under the Act
or award compensation to the parties as it deems fit having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case.
20) Communication of decisions and orders:
i) Every decision or order of the Commission shall be signed and
dated by the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information
Commissioner who have heard the appeal or the complaint and have
decided the matter.
ii) Every decision/order of the Commission shall be pronounced in the
open court after conducting hearing and shall be placed on the website
of the Commission on the next day. The decision and order of the
53
Commission shall be communicated to the parties under authentication
by the Secretary of the Commission and shall be given to the parties by
hand/by post free of cost on the date of signing of the order by the
Commission.
21) Abatement of an Appeal/Complaint:
The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the
death of the appellant or complainant.
@@@@@
54
Annexure- III (Ref. para 2.1.3 of Chapter-II)
APPENDIX-III
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA GNERAL ADMINISTRATION (ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS) DEPARTMENT
No.G.3(5)-GA(AR)/2005/VI Dated, Agartala the 27th Sept., 2005
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is hereby notified that the Right to Information Act, 2005 shall not apply to the Home(Police) Department of the Government of Tripura including its Forensic Science Laboratory; Provided that the said Act, 2005 shall apply to the Home(Police) Department in respect of any information pertaining to any allegation of corruption and human rights violation. Provided further that if the information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request. 2. This takes immediate effect.
Sd/-
(L. H. Darlong) Addl. Secretary to the Government of Tripura
55
Annexure- IV (Ref. para 2.2.10 of Chapter-II)
No.G.3(5)-GA(AR)/2006/(P-I)/1481-82 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
GNERAL ADMINISTRATION(ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS) DEPARTMENT
Dated, Agartala the 9th August, 2005
It has been decided by the State Government that SIPARD shall be
the Implementing Agency of RTI Act, 2005 in the State of Tripura.
Henceforth, the SIPARD shall be responsible for organizing
educational & training programmes, preparation of teaching materials
including compilation and publication of the guidelines relating to RTI Act.
This shall have with immediate effect.
Sd/- (A. Debnath)
(Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura)
56
Annexure- V (Ref. para 2.2.14 of Chapter-III
List of the SPIO and First Appellate Authority for the year 2012-13
SL NO Name of the Department
Name of the SPIO with Designation
Name of the FAA with Designation
1 Labour Department
1) Sri U Majumder. (Commissioner) 2) Sri L M Debbarma. (Chief Labour Officer) 3) Sri Ashok Debbarma. (Labour Officer) 4) Sri R K Das. (Labour Officer) 5) Sri Shyamal Das. (Labour Officer)
1) Sri P K Chakravarty. (Labour Commissioner)
2 Rural Development Department
1) Sri S R Das. (Deputy Secretary) 2) Sri N R Das. (Deputy Secretary)
1) Dr. Pratapaditya Datta. (Executive Officer) 2) Sri Abhiskek Chandra. (Executive Officer)
3 Education Department (Higher)
1) Sri Sujit Kr. Chakraborty. (Associate Professor & Principal In-Charge) 2) Sri Prabir Datta. (Asstt Professor & Principal In-Charge) 3) Sri Malswama Darlong. (Asstt Professor & Principal In-Charge) 4) Sri Gopal Debnath.
1) Dr. Bipradas Palit. (Director)
57
(Asstt Professor & Principal In-Charge) 5) Sri Jiban Krshna Patra. (Asstt Professor & Principal In-Charge) 6) Md. Mujahid Rahaman. (Associate Professor & Principal In-Charge) 7) Sri Hari Sudhan Basak (Associate Professor & Principal In-Charge) 8) Sri Rajesh Bhattacharjee. (Jt. Director) 9) Smt Manidipa Debbarma. (Principal) 10) Dr. Gopalmani Das. (Principal) 11) Dr. Gita Debnath. (Principal) 12) Dr. Juthika Bhattacharjee. (Principal) 13) Dr. Dipankar Chakraborty. (Principal) 14) Dr. Dipannita Chakraborty. (Principal) 15) Dr. Pramode Ranjan Bhattacharjee. (Principal) 16) Dr. Sanjoy
58
Roy. (Principal) 17) Dr. Samir Kr. Diabagh. (Principal-In-Charge) 18) Dr. Bimal Kr. Ray. (Principal) 19) Dr. Thaiu Mog. (Principal-In-Charge) 20) Sri Amrit Kr. Bhattacharjee. (Principal-In-Charge) 21) Dr. Sambhunath Rakshit. (Principal) 22) Dr. Subrata Sharma. (Asstt. Professor) 23) Dr. Dilip Sarkar. (Principal) 24) Sri Arup Kr. Das Chaudhuri. (Asstt. Prof.) 25) Sri Tridip Chakraborty. (Principal) 26)Sri Abhijit Bhattacharya. (Principal-In-Charge) 27) Dr. Ranjan Kumar Mishra. (Asst. Proff.) 28) Smt. Manika Das. (Principal-In-Charge) 29) Sri Pratip Brata
59
Bhattacharjee. (Curator-In-Charge) 30) Sri Abhijit Chanda. (Asstt. Professor) 31) Sri Subi Chandra Debbarma. (DDO) 32) Sri Kantimoy Ghosh. (Principal) 33) Dr. Lalrinnunga Hmar. (Asstt. Proff.) 34) Dr. Rakhal Debnath. (Associate Professor)
4 Directorate For Welfare Of SC & OBCs
1) Sri Udayan Sinha. (Jt. Director)
1) Sri Niranjan Barman. (Managing Director) 2) Sri Radha Mohan Malakar. (Director)
5 The Tripura SC Co-Op Dev. Corpn. Ltd
1) Sri Subal Debbarma. (General Manager)
1) Sri Niranjan Barman. (Managing Director) 2) Sri Radha Mohan Malakar. (Director)
6 The Tripura OBC Co-Op Dev. Corpn. Ltd.
1) Sri Subal Debbarma. (General Manager)
1) Sri Niranjan Barman. (Managing Director) 2) Sri Radha Mohan Malakar. (Director)
7 Department Of Information & Cultural Affairs
1) Sri Thai Khoi Choudhury. (Deputy Director) 2) Sri Tinku Biswas. (Assistant Director) 3) Sri Dilip Deb Barma. (Assistant Director) 4) Sri Mrinal Das. (Assistant Director) 5) Bipul Deb
1) Sri Santanu Das. (Director)
60
Barma. (Assistant Director) 6) Sri Ajoy Dey. (SIO) 7) Sri Chandan Sarkar. (SIO) 8) Md Fakar Uddin. (ICO) 9) Sri Debasish Nath. (SIO) 10) Sri Ripan Chakma. (SIO) 11) Sri Biswajit Deb. (SIO) 12) Sri Amrit Deb Barma. (SIO) 13) Smt. Mani Mala Das. (ICO) 14) Sri Nabendu Choudhury. (ICO) 15) Sri Dayal Majumder. (ICO) 16) Sri Tuhin Aich. (ICO) 17) Sri Prasenjit Choudhury. (ICO) 18) Sri Samarjit Sinha. (Assistant Publication Officer) 19) Sri Amrit Das. (ICO) 20) Sri Goutam Das. (ICO)
61
21) Sri Bidya Mohan Jamatia. (ICO) 22) Sri Sujit Kanti Ghosh. (ICO)
8 Public Works Department
1) Sri Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee. ( TES Gr-IV, Civil) 2) Sri Bipul Deb Roy. (Executive Engineer) 3) Sri Dipak Das. (Executive Engineer) 4) Sri Asish Kr. Deb. (Executive Engineer)
1) Sri Phani Bhusan Bhattacherjee. (Superintending Engineer) 2) Sri Shyamalendu Bhowmik. (Superintending Engineer)
9 Directorate Of Employment Services & Manpower Planning
1) Sri Satyajit Sarkar. (Additional Director) 2) Sri Rajesh Datta. (Statistician) 3) Sri Goutam Majumdar. (Employment Officer) 4) Sri Anish Ranjan Bhattacharjee. (Senior Research Officer) 5) Sri Pranay Sankar Dey. (Assistant Director) 6) Sri Goutam Majumder.
1) Sri Balin Debbarma (Director)
62
(Employment Officer)
10 Revenue Department
1) Sri Sambhu Nama. (Addl. District Magistrate & Collector) 2) Sri R Reang. (ADM-1) 3) Sri Manik Lal Das. (SDM) 4) Sri Ratan Biswas. (SDM) 5) Sri Dhiraj Debbarma. (SDM) 6) Sri Dulal Ch. Das. (ADM & Collector) 7) Sri U J Mog. (SDM) 8) Sri Ushajen Mog. (SDM) 9) Sri Tamal Majumder. (SDM) 10) Sri Sankar Chakraborty. (SDM) 11) Mod. Zubair Ali Hashmi. (ADM & Collector) 12) Sri Nripendra Ch. Sharma. (SDM) 13) Sri Rajib Datta. (SDM) 14) Sri Satyabrata Nath. (SDM) 15) Sri Balin
1) Sri S Bondopadhyay. (DM & Collector) 2) Sri M L Dey. (DM & Collector) 3) Sri T Debbarma. (DM & Collector) 4) Sri K D Choudhury. (D M & Collector)
63
Debbarma. (ADM & Collector) 16) Sri Sajal Biswas. (SDM) 17) Sri Pankaj Chakraborty. (SDM) 18)Sri Dasarath Debbarma. (SDM) 19) Sri S Karmakar. (ADM & Collector) 20) Sri Satya Brata Nath. (Divisional Magistrate)
11 Department Of Science, Technology & Environment
1) Sri S K Das (Scientific Officer) 2) Shri Swaraj Debbarma. (Scientific Officer) 3) Sri Biraj Krishna Das. (Scientific Officer) 4) Sri Moulindu Debbarma. (Scientific Officer) 5) Sri Tapan Das. (Scientific Officer)
1) Sri S K Paul. (Director)
12 Tripura Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
1) Sri Rakhal Sarkar (DY. General Manager)
1) Sri Shantiray Rean. (Managing Director)
13 Tripura Public Service
1) Sri D Bandopadhyay.
1) Sri K M Das. (Secretary)
64
Commission (Joint Secretary) 14 Tripura State Co-
Operative Union 1) Mr. Chandra Sekhar Chattopadhyay. (Principal)
1) Mr. S K Debbarma. (Executive Officer)
15 Transport Department
1) Smt. Jhunu Bhattacharjee. (O/S)
1) Sri Amit ray Barman. (Addl. Secretary
16
Urban Dev 1) Sri Subhash Biswas. (Assistant Survey Officer) 2) Sri Bidhan Ch. Roy. (Executive Officer) 3) Sri Ashim Saha. (Executive Officer) 4) Smt. Harshita Biswas. (Executive Officer) 5) Sri Muktipada Paul. (Executive Officer) 6) Sri Apan Debnath. (Assistant Engineer)
1) Sri Sonal Goel. (Chief Executive Officer)
17 Tribal Welfare Department
1) Sri Samir Murasing. (Deputy Project Advisor) 2) Sri Santosh Das. (Dy. Director) 3) Sri Prafulla Reang. (Dy. Director) 4) Sri Sumedha Debbarma. (Principal)
1) Sri L H Darlong. (Director) 2) Sri Sailohnuna. (S.S.G) 3) Sri Amit Kumar Debbarma. (Addl. Director)
18 Directorate Of School
1) Smt Swapna Das (Bal)
1) Sri Biswarath Debbarma. (Joint Director)
65
Education. (Deputy Director)
19 Education(YAS) Sri Mrinal Kanti Das (Deputy Director)
Sri Sahadeb Das, Director, YAS
20 Agriculture Department
1) Sri N Chakma. (Add. Director)
1) Dr. D P Sarkar (Directior Agriculture)
21 Animal Resources Department
1) Sri Dr. Prasad Das. (Deputy Director Non Gazetted establishment Section)
1)Sri Dharmeseear Das. (Deputy Director)
22 Assembly Secretariat
1) Sri Hari Bhushan Debnath. (Under Secretary)
1) Sri Bamdeb Majumder (Secretary)
23 Governor Secretariat
1) Swapan Kr. Roy. (Under Secretary)
1) Smt. Nabanita Roy. (Special Secretary to Governor)
24 C M Secretariat 1) Sri R P Datta. (Additional Secretary)
1 Sri L K Gupta. (Principal Secretary)
25 Tripura State Coop. Bank Ltd
1) Smt Aparna Debbarma. (Development Officer)
1) Sri Swapan Kumar Saha. (MD, TSCB)
26 Education (SW & SE)
1) Sri Achintam Kilikadar. (Deputy Commissioner)
1) Sri D Darlong. (Director)
27 Food, Civil Supplies & CA
Sri Sankar Dey (Controller of Stores)
Dr Debashis Basu (Direcor)
28 Forest Sri R. K. Tripura (Divisional Forest Officer)
Sri C. Debbarma (Chief Conservation of Forest)
29 Fisheries Sri A. K. Sarkar (Joint Director of Fisheries)
Sri S. Riyang (Director of Fisheries)
30 General Admn(P&T)
Sri R. K. Debbarma (Under Secretary)
Sri R. P. Datta (Addl. Secretary)
31 Finance Sri Rabia Sri N. Darlong (Joint Secretary)
66
Debbarma (Under Secretary)
32 General Adm(AR)
Sri B. P. Das (Under Secretary)
Sri G. K. Rao (Principal Secretary)
33 General Admn(SA)
Sri Ajit Debbarma (Deputy Secretary)
34 General Admn(Pol)
Sri Tanmoy Debbarma (Under Secretary)
35 Health Deptt. Dr S. Debbarma (Joint Director, Health)
Dr S. R. Debbarma (Director of Health)
36 Tripura Information Commission
Sri Debashis Halder (P.P.S.)
Dr Manash Dev (Secretary)
37 Family Welfare & P.M.
Dr N. Darlong (Joint Director)
Dr R. K. Dhar (Director, FW&PM)
38 Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture
Sri D. Debbarma, Deputy Director
Sri T. K. Chakma (Director, HHS)
39 Panchayat Sri Ashuranjan Debbarma (Deputy Director)
Sri P. Datta (Director of Panchayat)
40 GA(Printing & Stationery)
Sri Saikat Debbarma (Manager)
Sri J. L. Debbarma (Director)
41 Home(Jail) Sri B. P. Choudhury (Under Secretary)
Sri Saradindu Choudhury (Deputy Secretary)
42 Home (Police) Sri B. P. Choudhury (Under Secretary)
Sri R. P. Datta (Deputy Secretary)
67
Annexure- VI (Ref. para 3.2.1 of Chapter-III)
Status of disposal of the requests for information by the State Public Information Officers based on the Annual Reports furnished by the
different departments stands as under (2012-13)
Name of Department No. of Requests Received during the
Year
No. of Requests Disposed
No. of Requests Rejected
No. of Requests allowed
No. of requests
pending at the end of the year
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Governor Secretariat Nil Nil Nil Nil NilTripura Public Service
Commission 85 79 Nil 85 6
Agriculture Department 48 48 Nil 48 Nil
Animal Resources Deptt
11 9 Nil 11 2
Assembly Secretariat 23 23 Nil 23 NilC M Secretariat 27 23 Nil 27 4
Tripura State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
03 03 Nil 03 Nil
Co-operative society 20 20 Nil 20 NilEducation (SW & SE)
59 59 Nil 59 Nil
Education (Higher) 81 81 Nil 81 NilEducation (School) 174 174 Nil 174 NilEducation (YAS) 08 08 Nil 08 NilICFAI University 19 19 Nil 19 Nil
Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer’s Affairs
25 25 Nil 25 Nil
Forest Department 135 130 Nil 135 5Fisheries Department 09 09 Nil 09 NilFinance Department 84 84 Nil 84 Nil
General Administration (AR) Department
10 10 Nil 10 Nil
General Administration (P&T) Department
71 70 Nil 71 Nil
General Administration (SA) Department
16 16 Nil 16 Nil
Horticulture Dptt. 12 12 Nil 12 NilGeneral Administration
(Pol) Deptt. 02 02 Nil 02 Nil
General Administration 3 3 Nil 3 Nil
68
(C & C) Dptt. General Administration
(P&S) Department 06 06 Nil 06 Nil
Election Dptt 12 12 Nil 12 Nil
Home (jail) Dptt
21 21 Nil 21 Nil
Home (Police) Department
207 207 Nil 207 Nil
Health & preventing medicine
28 28 Nil 28 Nil
Directorate of handloom,handicrafts & sericulture(I & C)
3 3 Nil 3 Nil
Health & Family Welfare
240 240 Nil 240 Nil
Information, Cultural Affairs & Tourism
07 05 Nil 07 Nil
Labour Department Law Department 28 28 Nil 28 NilPW Department 29 29 Nil 29 Nil
Revenue Department 270 270 Nil 270 03Science, Technology &
Environment Deptt. 46 45 Nil 46 1
Urban Development Department
129 106 Nil 129 23
Tripura Information Commission
6 6 Nil 6 Nil
Tripura Gramin Bank Panchayat Department 218 218 Nil 218 Nil
Rural Dev. Deptt. 17 17 Nil 17 NilTransport Department 26 26 Nil 26 NilGuwahati High Court 22 22 Nil 22 Nil
Welfare of OBC 18 16 NIL 16 02Welfare of SC 44 44 Nil 44 Nil
Total 2302 2256 NIL 2302 46
Smti W/OC/O JoynP.O.-
Sri RScho-------
Sonali Bhat Sri Sambhu SriAmareshagar Midd- Agartala :
astrapati Pool, Dhalesw-----------------
State
in-cha
2.
the S
of in
TRIP
Co
ttacharya ukanti Debnh Debnath le Road : West Tripu
Paul, Teachwar, Agarta----------------
Comp
Public Info
arge, Prach
The co
PIO, Prachy
formation
URA INFORMP. N. Com
Agart
omplaint N
nath
ra……………
her-in-chargala (State P----------------
Date
plainant Sm
ormation O
hya Bharati
omplainan
ya Bharati
from the
69
MATION COplex: Gorkhtala – 799 0
o. TIC – 03 o
…………….…Vs
ge DDO, Public Inform-----------------
ORDER d 28.06.201
mti Sonali
fficer (SPIO
i H S (+2) Sta
t Smti Sona
H.S. (+2) St
School a
OMMISSIONhabasti 06
of 2012-13
………………
Prachya Bhmation Offic----------------
Date of he Date of iss
12
Bhattachar
O) Sri Rastra
age Schoo
ali Bhattach
tage Schoo
uthority un
N
………….Co
harati H S cer)……Op----------------
earing: ue of order
rya is pres
apati Paul, T
ol is also pre
harjee app
ol seeking o
nder the
omplainant
(+2) Stagposite Party-----------------
28.06.201r: 28.06.2012
sent. The
Teacher-
sent.
roached
one item
Right to
e y --
2 2
70
Information Act, 2005. As alleged by the Complainant, the SPIO
after reading out the application refused to accept the
application and made some derogatory and unwarranted
comments. While attempting to submit the application to the office
of the School, the Head Clerk of the School also misbehaved with
the Complainant and the Complainant was not allowed to submit
the application. Thereafter, the Complainant filed this complaint
before the Commission on 30.03.2012 under the RTI Act and had
sought direction of the Commission to have access to information
as requested by her vide her application dated 29.03.2012 to the
SPIO, Prachya Bharati H.S. (+2) Stage School, which was not
accepted by the SPIO of the School. The Complainant further
demanded penal action against the SPIO for violating the
provisions of sections 6(1) and 7 of the Act.
3. The Commission admitted the complaint and the hearing
was fixed on 02.06.2012. Notices and summons to the parties
concerned were issued accordingly. However, on the date of
hearing on 02.06.2012, the SPIO did not appear despite issue of
notice well in advance and without taking any step seeking
permission of the Commission to exempt him from appearing for
hearing. Heard the Complainant and after perusal of the
documents submitted by the Complainant, the Commission was of
the view that the SPIO did not discharge his duties as were required
from him under the Act. A show-cause notice was issued on
02.06.2012 asking the SPIO to submit why penal actions should not
be taken against him under section 20(1) of the Act. The SPIO
submitted his reply on 07.06.2012. With a view to give the SPIO an
opportunity to represent his case, the Commission again fixed
28.06.2012 for hearing of the complaint and the SPIO and the
Complainant were directed to appear before the Commission.
71
4. During hearing, the Complainant submitted that she was
not allowed to submit the application under the RTI Act on
29.03.2012 by the SPIO, Prachya Bharati H.S. (+2) Stage School and
the office also refused to accept her application. The Complainant
further submitted that the SPIO misbehaved with her. However,
after receiving the show-cause notice and the summons, the
information sought for had been supplied to the Complainant. The
Complainant had expressed her satisfaction as the information
actually required had been supplied to her.
5. The SPIO in his defense had submitted that he was not
aware of existence of any RTI Act and his actions were out of
ignorance and there was no malafide intention in not receiving the
application. He also admitted that by not accepting an
application he had also violated the office procedure and the
office was also to be blamed equally. He prayed that considering
his ignorance, the Commission may condone this action and
assured that he would not commit such mistake in future and the
officials of the School would also act as per provisions of the Act.
The SPIO further submitted that he would undergo training on
implementation of the RTI Act from the State Institute of Public
Administration and Rural Development (SIPARD) as advised during
hearing and would go through the books supplied by the
Commission to understand his duties as SPIO of the School. In
response to his appeal, the Commission directed the SPIO to submit
an ‘undertaking’ in this regard.
6. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the
documents, the Commission was of the view that the demand of
the Complainant for imposition of penalty on the SPIO for non-
receipt of her application under the RTI Act was fully justified.
Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the
72
Commission is in agreement with the Complainant that the actions
of the SPIO attract the penalty provisions.
7. Further, the Commission considered the undertaking
submitted by the SPIO offering apology for his behaviour and his
assurance to strictly follow the provisions of the Act in future. The
Commission also considered the position that the Complainant had
received the information as sought for and the SPIO had his first
exposure to a petition under the RTI Act in the case and out of
ignorance committed the mistake, for which he was repenting.
Under the circumstances, the Commission took a very lenient view
and decided not to impose penalty on the SPIO.
8. With the above orders, the complaint stands disposed of.
9. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OP free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
73
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Complaint No. TIC-03 of 2012-13/ June 28, 2012 ...........................................................................................................................................
Copy to:-
1. Smti Sonali Bhattacharya, W/O Sri Sambhukanti Debnath, C/O SriAmaresh Debnath, Joynagar Middle Road, P.O.- Agartala : West Tripura (Complainant). 2. Sri Rastrapati Paul, Teacher-in-charge DDO, Prachya Bharati H S (+2) Stage School, Dhaleswar, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri RaKujabP.O.-Agar
Sri UColo………-------
abinbdra Krban Colony-Abhoynagrtala: West
. Majumdeony, Abhoyn………………-----------------
O
In
St
se
du
TRIPUP.
Comp
r. Debnath y
gar- 799 005Tripura……
er, O S D, Tnagar, Aga………………----------------
Comp
pposite Pa
dustries Co
ate Public
eeking perm
uring hearin
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
5 ………………
Tripura Smaartala (State………………
----------------
Date
plainant Sri
arty (OP) Sr
orporation
Informatio
mission of
ng. The ASP
74
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 0
…….………Vs
all Industriee Public Info
………………-----------------
ORDER d 18.07.201
Rabindra K
ri U. Majum
Limited (T
on Officer
the Comm
PIO Sri A. Sa
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
6 of 2012
………………
es Corporatormation O………………----------------
Date of heDate of issu
12
Kr. Debnath
mder, O S
TSICL), Aga
(SPIO) is
mission to
aha is prese
ON
2-13
…………Co
tion LimitedOfficer). …………Op----------------
aring: ue of order:
h is present
D, Tripura
artala and
absent wi
remain a
nt.
mplainant
d, Kunjaba
pposite Part-----------------
18.07.2012: 18.07.2012
. The
Small
d the
ithout
bsent
n
ty --
2 2
75
2. This complaint arises out of a petition dated
20.06.2012 filed before the Commission by the Complainant
Sri Rabindra Kr. Debnath. It had been alleged by the
Complainant that though he filed an application under the
RTI Act on 16.03.2012 before the SPIO of the TSICL, Agartala,
he did not receive any response from the SPIO, TSIC. In the
meantime, he further approached the SPIO and submitted a
reminder on 20.03.2012. However, the concerned SPIO did
not respond to his request and, therefore, the Complainant
had approached the Commission with this complaint
seeking direction to have access to the information as
sought for by him. The Commission considered the petition
of the Complainant and admitted it as a complaint under
section 18 (1) of the Act.
3. The Complainant sought for the following two items of
information from the SPIO, TSICL:-
“i) Have you placed the payment of Gratuity (Amendment)
Act, 2010 published in the gazette of India on 18.05.2010 in
the B O D of TSIC for implement?
ii) If yes, please supply the copy of B O D decision.”
4. Perused the documents submitted before the
Commission and heard the Complainant and the ASPIO.
During hearing, the Complainant submitted that he had not
received any information till now from the SPIO or the ASPIO
and no intimation in respect of expected time by which the
information could be supplied was communicated to him.
The Complainant further submitted that while he
approached the Department with his reminder to get the
information sought for, the concerned ASPIO of the
Department advised him to approach the Commission for
76
having access to the information sought for by the
Complainant.
5. On being asked to explain the reasons for not
furnishing the information as sought for by the Complainant,
the ASPIO of the Department submitted that as the dealing
assistant posted in the RTI Cell was sick, there was delay in
preparing the information. The Commission however, noted
that the information had been collected and submitted
before the Commission vide letter dated 07.07.2012 by the
SPIO after receipt of notice for appearing before the
Commission without even marking a copy to the Information
seeker and the Complainant. The ASPIO also confirmed that
no information was supplied to the Complainant. The reply
prepared and submitted before the Commission by the SPIO
is as below:
“i) The TSIC Ltd. Has not submitted the Gazettes of India on
18.05.2010 in the BOD meeting of TSIC Ltd.
ii) The TSIC Ltd. has not yet submitted the Gazette of India on
18.05.2010 in the BOD meeting of TSIC Ltd. So copy is not
available with this office to supply to Sri Rabindra Kr.
Debnath, Ex. UDC of TSIC Ltd.”
As the Complainant was not given any reply by the SPIO, the
Commission handed over the letter submitted before the
Commission to the Complainant who after going through
the letter expressed satisfaction as according to him the
information given was adequate.
6. After considering the facts and the circumstances of
the case, the Commission is of the opinion that the SPIO of
77
the Department of TSIC Ltd. has not given due importance
to perform his role as SPIO and has paid no attention to give
a reply to the Complainant within the time specified in the
Act. The information was prepared and was submitted
before the Commission on 07.07.2012 after receiving the
notice from the Commission to appear before it. However,
the SPIO did not consider it appropriate to even mark a
copy of this letter to the Complainant and avoided the
Complainant intentionally. The SPIO submits information
sought for by the Complainant to the Commission which is
totally uncalled for. On being asked to explain the logic
behind such action of the Department, the ASPIO kept quiet
and did not answer. The Commission handed over the copy
of the letter submitted by the SPIO, to the Complainant with
directions to the SPIO to authenticate the content and
enclosure of the letter. While a petition for two items of
information was submitted to the SPIO on 16.03.2012, an one
liner reply against these two items had been sent to the
Commission only on 07.07.2012, after a lapse of 125 days,
violating section 7(1) of the Act. The Commission held that
the SPIO Sri U. Majumder has failed to discharge his duties as
expected from him as an SPIO and directs the SPIO to show
cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order as
to why a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- cannot be imposed on him
under section 20(1) of the Act. The Commission also viewed
very seriously that the SPIO chose not to be present during
hearing even though notice had been sent well in advance.
The Commission directs the SPIO to explain within 10 days
from the date of receipt of this order the reasons why he has
not appeared before the Commission during hearing.
78
7. With the above observation and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OP free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC-06 of 2012-13/ July 18, 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. Copy to:- 1. Sri Rabinbdra Kr. Debnath, Kujaban Colony, P.O.-Abhoynagar- 799 005, Agartala: West Tripura (Complainant). 2. Sri U. Majumder, O S D, Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited, Kunjaban Colony, Abhoynagar, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Md. JanaVill &Distri
Sri MBran………
-------
Kamal Khaata Dal (U), & P.O.- Tilab
ct- Unakoti
Monoranjanch, Kailasha………………
-----------------
pe
O
M
Tri
pr
TRIPUP.
Comp
n, General Tripura Staazar, P.S. – , Tripura……
n Debbarmahar, Unak
………………
----------------
The c
etition date
pposite Pa
anager an
ipura Gra
resent.
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
Secretary te Committ Kailashaha
………………
ma, Branch koti, Tripura ………………
----------------
ODated
complainan
ed 21.08.20
arty (OP)
nd the State
min Bank,
79
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 0
tee ar …..………….
Vs Manager,(State Publ
………………
-----------------
D D
ORDER d, 22.08.20
nt Md. Kam
12 sent by
Sri Monora
e Public Inf
, Tilabazar
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
8 of 2012
………………
, Tripura Gic Informat………………
----------------
Date of HeaDate of Issu
012
mal Khan
fax to the C
anjan Deb
formation O
r Branch,
ON
2-13
…………Co
Gramin Bantion Officer)…………Op
----------------
aring: e of Order:
is absent
Commission
bbarma, Br
Officer (SPI
Kailashah
omplainant
nk, Tilabaza).
pposite Part
-----------------
22-08-201 22-08-201
by a
n. The
ranch
O) of
ar is
ar
ty
--
2 2
80
2. Complainant Md. Kamal Khan filed an application on
24.05.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before
the SPIO of Tripura Gramin Bank, Tilabazar Branch,
Kailashahar seeking certain items of information. As the
complainant did not receive any reply from the SPIO, Tripura
Gramin Bank, he approached the Commission on 12.07.2012
with this complaint seeking appropriate redress.
3. Heard the OP and perused the records submitted
before the Commission by the complainant. The
representation dated 17.08.2012 of the OP was received by
the Commission on 22.08.2012 during the hearing. The
complainant vide his petition dated 24.05.2012 sought the
following items of information from the SPIO: “Details of loan
against MGNREGA job card holder & the procedure. Copy
of Government circular, List of applicant under Congress
and CPI (M) Party for loan. Details list of total 10 Nos.
villages card holders under your Bank with separate list.”
4. The Complainant vide his letter dated 21.08.2012
submitted before the Commission that he was being
threatened continuously as he sought such information from
the Bank and as it was considered not safe for him to leave
his home town to appear before the Commission at
Agartala, he had requested for exemption from personal
attendance. During hearing, the SPIO submitted that he had
prepared the reply enclosing all items of information as
sought for by the Complainant. However, as a court notice
was issued against him on 21.06.2012, he could not supply
the information to the Complainant.
81
5. The Commission noted that the Police case, as
mentioned by the SPIO has no relation with the supply of
information under the Right to Information Act. The SPIO has
in fact, taken a wrong plea to avoid supply of information to
the Complainant and has not even issued a reply to the
letter of the Complainant conveying such decision taken by
the SPIO on the petition filed under the RTI Act. The
information was required to be sent within June 24, 2012 and
the SPIO did not send even an interim reply to the
Complainant despite having information with him, as stated
by the SPIO during hearing today on August 22, 2012. The
SPIO however, submitted that he was not aware of the
provisions of the RTI Act and because of his ignorance the
information was not supplied within the statutory time limit.
Further, the SPIO promised that in future he would ensure
compliance of all provisions of the Act and also assured the
Commission that such actions would never be repeated. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Commission takes a lenient view and accedes to the
request of the SPIO to exempt him from paying the penalty
as has been proposed by the Commission. The Commission
now directs the SPIO to furnish the required information
sought for by the Complainant vide his petition dated
24.05.2012 by 28th August, 2012 free of cost to the
Complainant as admissible under section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
As list of beneficiaries belonging to different Political Parities
are not being maintained in the bank, such information can
not be given. The Public Authority of Tripura Gramin Bank
may arrange training of their SPIOs to educate them on
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, to enable them to perform
their duties as required under the Act.
82
7. With the above observations and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the complainant and
the OP free of cost. Also send a copy of this order to the
Public Authority of the Tripura Gramin Bank.
Sd/-
(Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC-08 of 2012-13/ August 22, 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Md. Kamal Khan, General Secretary, Janata Dal (U), Tripura State Committee, Vill & P.O.- Tilabazar, P.S. – Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura (Complainant) 2. Sri Monoranjan Debbarma, Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Tilabazar Branch, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura (State Public Information Officer). 3.The Head of the Public Authority, Head office, Tripura Gramin Bank, Abhoynagar, Agartala.
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Smti D/O DhalAgar
Sri RScho-------
Swati Debn Sri Amrit Laeswar Roadrtala – 799 0
astrapati Pool, Dhalesw-----------------
comp
Office
Bhara
teach
TRIPUP.
Co
nath al Debnathd No- 10 (n007 West Tr
Paul, Teachwar, Agarta----------------
Sri Dw
plainant Sm
er (SPIO)
ati H S (+2
her/officials
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
omplaint N
ear bundhipura………
her-in-chargala (State P----------------
Date
wijalal De
mti Swati D
Sri Rastrap
2) Stage Sc
s of the Sch
83
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 11 o
) ………………
Vs ge DDO, Public Inform-----------------
ORDER d 28.09.201
bnath is
Debnath. T
pati Paul,
chool is a
hool.
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
of 2012-13
….…………
Prachya Bhmation Offic----------------
Date of he Date of iss
12
present o
The State
Teacher-in
lso present
ON
…………..Co
harati H S cer)……Op----------------
aring: ue of order
on behalf
Public Info
n-charge,
t along wi
mplainant
(+2) Stagposite Party-----------------
28.09.2012r: 28.09.2012
of the
ormation
Prachya
ith other
e y --
2 2
84
2. The complainant Smti Swati Debnath approached the
SPIO of Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura
seeking certain items of information on 18.07.2012 under the Right
to Information Act, 2005. The SPIO vide letter dated 20.07.2012
transferred the application under the RTI Act to the Headmaster
and the SPIO of Prachya Bharati H.S. (+2) Stage School directing
him to dispose of the request and supply the information to the
Complainant direct ‘at her home address’. It was further alleged
by the Complainant that till the date of lodging this complaint
before this Commission on 23.08.2012, the Headmaster and the
SPIO of Prachya Bharati H.S. (+2) Stage School did neither respond
the request nor did he supply any information to her and as such
the Appellant sought directions of the Commission to have access
to the information as sought for by her vide her application dated
18.07.2012.
3. The Complainant vide her petition on 18.07.2012
requested for the following information:-
“i) Result sheet of the interview board signed by the Chairman and
members of the interview board, (Certified copy) which interview
held on 28th and 29th May,12 in the West District Education office,
for the post of PGT in Education of Prachya Bharati H/S School.
ii) List of candidates of more then 10 (ten) years senior for
publication of results of Part II (Hons) in the subject of Education
(Certified copy).
iii) List of candidates having B.Ed degree with percentage of marks
(certified copy).
iv) List of candidates appeared in the interview board mentioned
percentage of marks from Madhyamik to Master degree (Certified
copy).
85
v) Certified copy of selected candidates of PGT in Education of
Prachaya Bharati H/S School submitted the Secretary, Managing
committee/school authority of Prachaya Bharati H/S school.”
4. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the
documents as place before it, the Commission found that the SPIO
of the Prachya Bharati H.S. School supplied entire documents
containing the result sheets of 102 candidates along with their
educational and other personal data to the Complainant when
the selection process was yet to be completed. The Directorate of
School Education to whom the Complainant approached for
information under the RTI Act, without going through the content of
the application transferred the petition of the Complainant to the
SPIO of Prachya Bharati H.S. (+2) Stage School for supply of
information, while it was known to the Directorate that the
selection process was yet to be completed. The School Authority
accepted the letter of the Directorate of School Education as
order and direction of the controlling authority and supplied the
entire documents of ongoing selection process containing personal
data in respect of 102 candidates. While the SPIO of the
Directorate of School Education being the custodian of all
documents, was required to issue a letter to the information seeker
(Complainant) stating that as the recruitment process was going
on and the decision was yet to be taken in respect of selection of
candidates, the information in respect of result sheets etc. as
sought by the Complainant was not allowed to be given. Rather,
an easy way of transferring the application was taken and a serious
mistake had been committed by the SPIO, Prachya Bharati H.S.
School by furnishing confidential documents of some ongoing
examinations/selection process including third party information in
86
respect of 102 candidates after collection of these records from
the Directorate of School Education.
5. With the above observations, the complaint stands
disposed of.
6. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OP free of cost. A copy of this order also be sent to the Public
Authority of School Education, Government of Tripura.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Complaint No. TIC-11 of 2012-13/ September 28, 2012 ........................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Smti Swati Debnath, D/O Sri Amrit Lal Debnath, Dhaleswar Road No- 10 (near bundh), Agartala – 799 007 West Tripura (Complainant). 2. Sri Rastrapati Paul, Teacher-in-charge DDO, Prachya Bharati H S (+2) Stage School, Dhaleswar, Agartala (State Public Information Officer) – OP.
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri RaVill &P.S. –Distri
Sri P.Tripu-------
atish Tripura& P.O.- Kanc– Manughact – Dhalai,
K. Debbarmra (State Pu-----------------
ste
O
O
St
2.
ap
Ac
Blo
TRIPUP.
Comp
a chancherrat – 799 264 , Tripura……
ma, Block ublic Inform----------------
Comp
ep despite
pposite Pa
fficer (BDO
ate Public
Sri R
pplication
ct, 2005 be
ock, unde
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
a
……………...
Developmemation Offic
----------------
ODated
plainant Sri
e notice s
rty (OP) Sri
O) Manu R.D
Information
atish Tripu
on 19.05.2
efore the S
er Dhalai
87
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 1
.……………Vs
ent Officer,cer)…………-----------------
Da Da
ORDER d, 29.01.20
Ratish Trip
sent to him
P.K. Debb
D. Block, Ma
n Officer (SP
ura, Com
2012 under
SPIO, office
District se
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
9 of 2012
………………
, Manu R.D………………
----------------
ate of hearate of issue
013
pura is abse
m well in
barma, Bloc
anu, Dhala
PIO) is prese
mplainant
r the Right
e of the B
eeking ce
ON
2-13
…………Co
D. Block, Ma……….Opp----------------
ring: e of order:
ent without
advance.
ck Develop
i District an
ent.
had filed
t to Inform
BDO, Manu
ertain item
mplainant
anu, Dhalaposite Party-----------------
29.01.2013 29.01.2013
t any
. The
pment
d the
d an
mation
u R D
ms of
ai, y --
3 3
88
information. However, as alleged by the Complainant, till the
date of lodging of this complaint on 05.11.2012, which was
received by the Commission on 12.11.2012, the Complainant
did not receive any information from the SPIO, office of the
BDO, Manu R D Block, under Dhalai District. The
Complainant, therefore, approached this Commission to
issue directions to the SPIO to supply the information as
sought for by him.
3. The Complainant vide his request to the SPIO on
19.05.2012 sought for 9 (nine) items of information as given
below:-
“i) The total family members of SC/ST & others of 26 village
based under Manu RD Block.
ii) The numbers of BPL/APL & Antodaya Schemes of 26
village based under Manu RD Block.
iii) What type of benefits were given to the families of BPL
during the financial year from 1st April, 2009 to 31st March,
2012.
iv) The details of Indira Awash Yogna/Patta holders for
construction of work during the financial year from 1st April,
2009 to 31st March, 2012.
v) How much amount spent and credited out of the amount
received from different departments under Manu RD Block.
vi) How much amount spent and credited in 26 village
based under Manu RD Block out of sanctioned amount
under MGNREGA.
vii) How many village Secretaries/GRS were associated with
corruption in executing the work under MGNREGA and
whether disciplinary action taken against them.
viii) The details of the work of road/culvert/bridge done by
RD Department under Manu RD Block.
89
ix) The name of family members who received benefits from
Zilla Parishad though they were not within the jurisdiction of
Zilla Parishad under Kancherra & Nalkata.”
4. Heard the SPIO and the BDO, Manu RD Block.
Perused all the records submitted before the Commission
and also the representation dated 24.01.2013 of the OP as
received by the Commission on 28.01.2013. During hearing,
the SPIO submitted that after receiving the application
under the RTI Act, he instructed the concerned Section-in-
Charge of the respective village committees to submit the
required information as sought for by the Complainant as
those information were related to the Village Committees
and were maintained by them only. Though all the items of
information were supplied by the concerned village
committees, Section-in-Charge of Nalkata Village
Committee did not submit the information pertaining to that
Village Committee. Further, the SPIO submitted that all these
items of information as sought for was made ready for supply
to the Complainant and the matter was intimated to the
Complainant, who showed interest to visit the office of the
SPIO for receipt of the information without any delay.
However, he did not turn up and the information could not
be delivered to the Complainant.
5. The Commission considers the representation and oral
submission of the SPIO and is of the opinion that the SPIO has
not made the documents ready to provide them to the
Complainant and hence could not request him to deposit
the charges, for the stationery used to supply the
documents, as required, within the statutory period of 30
90
days. The Complainant, therefore, did not deposit any
amount towards supply of the documents by the SPIO. The
Commission considers this issue and directs the SPIO to
deliver the documents free of cost as admissible under
section 7(6) of the Act. The Commission further directs the
SPIO to supply the documents as sought for by the
Complainant duly authenticated by the SPIO and also to
obtain a receipt from the Complainant stating that he has
received the information as sought for by him, to be
forwarded to the Commission by the SPIO.
6. With the above observation and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of on merit in absence of the
Complainant.
7. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OP free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
91
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC-19 of 2012-13/ January 29, 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copy to:- 1. Sri Ratish Tripura, Vill & P.O.- Kanchancherra, P.S. – Manughat – 799 264, District – Dhalai, Tripura (Complainant). 2. Sri P.K. Debbarma, Block Development Officer, Manu R.D. Block, Manu, Dhalai, Tripura (State Public Information Officer) - OP.
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri KrD D AMayuP.O.-
Sri NAgar-------
ishna GopaA Flat No – ur Vihar, Ph- New Delhi
. Chakma rtala (State---------------
pe
re
St
Jo
Tri
pr
TRIPUP.
Comp
al Das 362 – C hase – I, Poci- 110 091.…
Joint Direc Public Info---------------
Comp
etition date
epresent him
ate for trea
oint Directo
ipura and
resent.
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
cket – II ………………
ctor, Directoormation Of----------------
ODated
plainant Sri
ed 14.02.20
m before th
atment. The
or, Directo
the State
92
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 2
…...……………Vs
orate of Agfficer)………---------------
Da Da
ORDER d 15.03.20
Krishna G
013 authoriz
he Commiss
e Opposite
rate of Ag
Public Inf
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
0 of 2012
………………
griculture, G………………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
13
Gopal Das
zing Sri Sek
sion as he i
e Party (OP
griculture,
ormation O
ON
2-13
…………Com
Governmen………….Opp----------------
ring: e of order:
is absent
khar Ch. D
is ill and is o
) Sri N. Cha
Governme
Officer (SP
mplainant
nt of Tripuraposite Party---------------
15.03.2013 15.03.2013
by a
ey to
out of
akma
nt of
IO) is
a, y --
3 3
93
2. Complainant Sri Krishna Gopal Das had filed five
applications on 03.09.2012 before the SPIO and the Joint
Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura
seeking certain items of information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Sri Krishna Gopal Das, the information seeker vide his
complaint before the Commission alleged that in response
to his requests made on 03.09.2012, the concerned SPIO did
neither provide him any information nor even responded to
his requests. Being aggrieved with the actions of the SPIO,
the Complainant filed the first appeal on 09.10.2012 before
the Director and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the
Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura.
However, the FAA did not fix any date of hearing nor any
relief was provided to the Complainant by the FAA. As the
Complainant, till the date of lodging of this complaint before
the Commission on 04.01.2013, did not receive any
information/direction from the SPIO/FAA towards supply of
information as sought for, the Complainant approached this
Commission for issue of directions to the SPIO, Department of
Agriculture to provide him the information as had been
requested by him vide his petition dated 03.09.2012. The
Commission considered the petition of the Complainant and
admitted it as a complaint under section 18(1) of the Act
and fixed the date of hearing on 26.02.2013.
3. Heard the representative of the Complainant and
the OP being the SPIO of the Department of Agriculture. Also
perused the documents submitted before the Commission
by the Complainant and the SPIO. On being asked to submit
the reasons for not responding to the requests of the
Complainant within the time prescribed in the Act, the SPIO
94
stated that the items of information requested for were very
old and were about 30-35 years old and the office could not
locate the documents and failed to provide the information.
The Commission noted that some portions of the items of
information were forwarded to the Complainant by the SPIO
on 07.01.2013. However, as had been alleged by the
Complainant, those documents were incomplete and were
totally illegible. The documents supplied by the SPIO were
placed before the Commission by the Complainant. The
Commission examined the documents and was fully in
agreement with the representative of the Complainant that
those documents were actually black papers sent very
casually by the SPIO and nothing could be made out from
the pages thus supplied. On being asked, the SPIO
submitted that as the documents were very old, the quality
of photocopies were very poor. The Commission perused the
original copies of the documents and directed the SPIO to
arrange clearer copies from a good xerox machine and to
supply those documents with due authentication. As regards
documents which were stated to be not available, the SPIO
submitted before the Commission that some time may be
granted to allow him to search for the records again. The
Commission acceded to the request of the SPIO and
allowed time up to 04.03.2013 to locate the records. The
complaint was accordingly fixed for hearing on 04.03.2013.
4. Perused the petition and examined the
representation dated 22.02.2013 of the SPIO as placed
before the Commission and also heard the Complainant
and the SPIO on 04.03.2013. The representative of the
Complainant had submitted that except the following three
95
items of information which were not provided by the SPIO,
he had no grievance in respect of response of the SPIO on
the petition filed under the RTI Act, 2005. These three items of
information, which are yet to be received by the
Complainant, are:
“(i) Content of the Finance Department decision which
accorded vide U O No-4633 FIN(G)/80 dated 17.09.1980 in
the Department memo dated 03.10.1980.
(ii) the procedure or circular by which non Agri-Graduate
benefited the scale of Rs. 370-800 instead of Rs.325-665 ( 90
nos. got benefited).
(iii) No. of persons benefited the scale of an anomaly
revision during 1979 of various grade (i.e. those who
appointed in between 1-3-74 to 26.11.75).”
The Commission during hearing focused its attention
on the replies proposed by the SPIO on those three items of
information as was sought for. On being asked by the
Commission, the reasons for not placing the information
before the Commission, the SPIO submitted that as the files
containing the above documents were very old and as the
files as also the documents as had been sought for under
the RTI Act could not be located despite very vigorous
search, these could not be placed. The SPIO, however,
further submitted that he would continue the search to
trace the files with assistance from other officials with a view
to provide the items of information to the Complainant. The
SPIO further requested to grant him some more time to
locate the files. The Commission acceded to the request of
the SPIO and fixed another date on 15.03.2013 for further
hearing of the complaint.
96
5. Heard the representative of the Complainant and the
SPIO and also examined the representation dated
14.03.2013 of the SPIO during hearing today on 15.03.2013.
The SPIO vide his representation dated 14.03.2013, actually
submitted an explanation for misplacement of the files
containing the documents as had been sought for. The
Commission noted that these files being 35-38 years old and
not the active files of the Department, nobody could trace
them despite extensive search. The Commission heard the
explanations for misplacement of the files of the SPIO again
during its 3rd hearing of the complaint today and noted that
the files could not be traced despite allowing more time by
the Commission as prayed for by the SPIO.
6. The Commission further noted that there is no Record
Retention Schedule to support non-existence of these files in
the Agriculture Department. Under the circumstances, I find
myself unable to do anything in this regard, because, as
stated by the SPIO, these files, containing the requested
information are untraceable, possibly non-existent.
7. As the information is not available for disclosure,
there shall be no obligation to provide it to the Complainant.
The rest already provided to the Complainant be
authenticated by the SPIO. The Department is advised to
prepare its Record Retention Schedule without any further
delay to avoid such uncertainties and wastage of time in
providing information to citizens.
8. With the above observation and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of.
97
9. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OP free of cost. Also send a copy to the Public Authority
of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura for
suitable action.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC-20 of 2012-13/ March 15, 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Krishna Gopal Das, D D A Flat No – 362 – C, Mayur Vihar, Phase – I, Pocket – II, P.O.- New Delhi- 110 091 (Complainant). 2. Sri N. Chakma, Joint Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Tripura, Agartala (State Public Information Officer) – OP. 3. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Agriculture Department, Capital Complex, Agartala (Public Authority).
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri ArTripuLaxmAgar
Sri RDepaOffic-------
run Nath, Jora Observe
mi Narayan rtala- 799 0
.K. Debbarartment,
cer)…………---------------
Th
to
St
Pr
Ap
pe
en
TRIPUP.
Comp
ournalist er Bari Road 01……….…
rma, UndeCapital
………………---------------
Comp
he Opposite
o the Gover
ate Public
rincipal Sec
ppellate Au
ersonal a
ngagemen
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
……………..…
r SecretaryComplex, ………………
----------------
ODated
plainant Sri
e Party (OP
rnment of T
Information
cretary, G
uthority is a
ppearance
ts.
98
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 22
………………Vs
y to the GAgartala
………………---------------
Da Da
ORDER d 09.04.20
Arun Nath
P) Sri R.K. De
Tripura, GA
n Officer (S
GA (P&T) D
absent afte
e due to
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
2 of 2012
………………
Governmena (State ………………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
13
is absent w
ebbarma,
(P&T) Depa
PIO) is pres
Departmen
er seeking
o some
ON
2-13
…………….C
t of TripuraPublic
………….Op----------------
ring: e of order:
without any
Under Secr
artment an
sent. Sri B. S
t and the
exemption
urgent o
omplainan
a, GA (P&TInformatio
pposite Part---------------
09.04.2013 09.04.2013
step.
retary
d the
Sinha,
e First
from
fficial
nt
T) on
y --
3 3
99
2. Complainant Sri Arun Nath had made an application
on 11.10.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the
Act) before the SPIO, GA (P&T) Department seeking certain
items of information. It was alleged by the Complainant vide
his petition before the Commission that the SPIO refused to
supply the information as was sought for and the
Complainant filed an appeal on 21.11.2012 before the First
Appellate Authority (FAA) of the GA (P&T) Department
making allegations against the action of the SPIO who failed
to supply the information as had been sought for vide his
petition dated 11.10.2012. The Complainant further alleged
that the FAA did not give any hearing of the appeal petition
filed by him nor did he issue any order on the appeal forcing
the Complainant to approach the Commission seeking
direction of the Commission to the SPIO and to the FAA to
decide the request for information as per provision of the RTI
Act. The Commission admitted the representation as a
complaint and fixed the date of hearing of the complaint
on 12.02.2013.
3. Heard the Complainant and the SPIO and perused
the representations placed before the Commission. During
hearing, the SPIO submitted that the information as had
been sought for had been compiled and had been made
ready for delivery to the Complainant. The Commission was
further informed of the position that the SPIO had conveyed
the gist of the information as had been proposed to be
forwarded to the Complainant. The Complainant had also
been requested by the SPIO of the GA(P&T) Department to
deposit the charges as had been calculated for providing
the documents as had been made ready following the
provision of the Act. The Complainant however was
100
agitated as the FAA had not given him any opportunity to
be heard as was required under the Act and refused to
receive the information from the SPIO as the procedures had
not been followed by the FAA of the GA(P&T) Department.
The Complainant further submitted that though his
complaint was against the SPIO and the FAA, the
Commission had summoned the SPIO only to appear in
person and insisted on appearance of the FAA and for fixing
of another date of hearing. The Commission acceded to the
request of the Complainant and had fixed next date of
hearing on 12.03.2013. In the meantime, a letter dated
11.03.2013 was received from the GA (P&T) Department
intimating the Commission that due to sad demise of his
father, Sri R.K. Debbarma, SPIO of the GA (P&T) Department
was not in a position to appear in person before the
Commission and a request was made to fix another date for
hearing of the complaint. The Commission acceded to the
request of the Department and fixed the date of hearing of
the complaint on 09.04.2013.
4. The complainant vide his petition before the SPIO,
GA(P&T) Department on 11.10.2012 had sought for the
following items of information:-
“i) Copy of the list of IAS, TCS and IPS officers who have
retired since 01.01.2001 to 30.09.2012 ( Cadre & year wise).
ii) Copy of list of the IAS, TCS, TPS officers who have
reappointed in the different department in different
capacity under the Government of Tripura since 01.01.2001
to 30.09.2012 along with their pay structure.
iii) Copy of year wise list of officers re-appointed with their
gross salary.
101
iv) Copy of basis on which the retired IAS, TCS & TPS officer
are being selected.”
5. Heard the SPIO of the GA (P&T) today and perused
the documents as had been submitted before the
Commission by the Complainant and the OP. During
hearing, the SPIO of the GA (P&T) Department submitted
that he had conveyed the action taken by the Department
towards furnishing of information to the Complainant and
the Complainant was aware of the position that the
information had been made ready. The SPIO further
submitted that the Complainant did not receive the
information despite his request. On being asked whether the
entire information was available with the Department, the
SPIO submitted a bunch of papers before the Commission
which was a compilation of information that contained the
items of information as had been sought for by the
Complainant.
6. The Commission had examined the documents as
had been prepared by the SPIO of GA (P&T) and noted that
the documents had not been authenticated by the SPIO.
Further, it was noted that the Department had compiled
information from various sources to forward those to the
Complainant, whereas the SPIO was required to forward
authenticated copies of documents as were held by the
Department to avoid a situation where SPIOs would start
creating documents. The Commission directs the SPIO of the
GA (P&T) Department to authenticate the documents
proposed to be forwarded to the Complainant. The
Department has already taken about six months to provide
the information as has been sought for by the Complainant
102
and cannot claim any fees towards stationery charges for
preparation of the documents. The SPIO is directed to send
the information to the Complainant through registered post
free of cost within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of
this order.
7. With the above observation and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of on merit in absence of the
Complainant.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the Complainant and
the OPs free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC-22 of 2012-13/ April 09, 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri B. Sinha, Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, GA (P&T) Department, Capital Complex, Agartala. (First Appellate Authority). 2. Sri R.K. Debbarma, Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, GA (P&T) Department, Capital Complex, Agartala (State Public Information Officer) - OP. 3. Sri Arun Nath, Journalist, Tripura Observer, Laxmi Narayan Bari Road, Agartala- 799 001 (Complainant).
(Dr Manash Dev)
Secretary Tripura Information Commissio
Sri BC/O P.O.-West
Sri R.(Stat………
Bimalendu R Roy Villa, M- Dhaleswat Tripura – 7
K. Tripura oe Public Inf………………
C
an
PC
2.
on
Ac
TRIPUP.
Comp
Roy, Math Choumr, Agartala99 007………
office of theformation O………………
Comp
ommission.
nd the Stat
CCF, Gover
Comp
n 07.11.201
ct) before
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
plaint No
mohni, Jail , ………………
e PCCF, GoOfficer)……………………
ODated
plainant Sri
The Oppo
te Public In
rnment of T
plainant Sri
2 under th
the SPIO o
103
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
o. TIC – 2
Road,
………………Vs
overnment ………………
………………
Date Date
ORDER d, 11.04.20
Bimalendu
osite Party
formation O
Tripura is als
i Bimalendu
e Right to
of the office
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
5 of 2012
………………
of Tripura, ………………………………
e of Hearinge of Issue o
013
Roy appe
(OP) Sri R
Officer (SPI
so present.
u Roy filed
Information
e of PCCF,
ON
2-13
…………. Co
Gurkhaba…………Op………………
g: 11f Order: 11
ared befor
.K. Tripura,
IO) office o
an applic
n Act, 2005
Governme
omplainant
sti, Agartalposite Party
……………..
-04-2013 -04-2013
re the
DFO
of the
cation
5 (the
ent of
a y
104
Tripura seeking certain items of information. However, the
information sought for by the Complainant was denied
under section 8(1)(h) of the Act as the matter was pending
before the Disciplinary Authority of the Department for a
decision. Being aggrieved with the decision of the SPIO, the
Complainant filed an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority (FAA), office of the PCCF on 17.12.2012. The FAA of
the Department heard the appeal and observed that the
clause (h) of the Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act
would not be applicable in the instant case as the
information sought were not related to any investigation or
prosecution of offenders. The FAA further pointed out that
the SPIO had ignored the other part of his duty in respect of
furnishing information regarding period within which an
appeal against such rejection may be preferred and
particulars of the appellate authority had not been furnished
by the SPIO as required under the Act. The FAA, therefore,
vide his order dated 03.01.2013 directed the SPIO to supply
copies of the documents as had been sought for by the
Complainant and also ‘to consider and issue orders in
respect of the other part of the RTI application requesting for
inspection of files’ as requested by the Complainant vide his
application dated 07.11.2012 under the RTI Act. The FAA
after examining the matter in respect of information sought
on departmental proceedings against Sri S. Sharma, Forester
pointed out that since departmental inquiry against Sri S.
Sharma had already been concluded, as had been stated
by the SPIO and the Inquiry report had also been submitted
before the Disciplinary Authority, there might not be any
apprehension that disclosure of information would impede
the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution
of offenders.
105
3. The SPIO received the order of the FAA. However, the
order dated 03.01.2013 of the FAA was not complied with.
The SPIO on the other hand approached the Public
Authority of the Department for a decision in the matter as
the FAA issued an order directing the SPIO to provide most
of the information. It is presumed that the SPIO might have
convinced the Public Authority that any disclosure of
information would impede the process of investigation and
such disclosure was not allowed under section 8(1)(h) of the
Act. The SPIO informed the Commission vide letter dated
11.04.2013 that the PCCF approved the above proposal of
non compliance of order of the FAA by the SPIO on
07.01.2013 and the Appellant was denied information by the
SPIO on 18.02.2013. Being dissatisfied with the action of the
SPIO and the Forest Department, the Complainant had
approached the Commission for a decision in the matter.
4. Heard the Complainant and the SPIO and perused
the records as had been submitted before the Commission
by the Complainant and the OP. The Complainant vide his
petition dated 07.11.2012 had sought for the following items
of information:-
“Inspection of documents of file No.F. 19(722)/vig/For-2010
and file No. F. 19(645)/Vig/For-2006 and also copies of
i)Number of pages in the file (No of pages of
correspondences & no of note sheets used may be
mentioned separately). The information is required for the
period 01.07.2011 to 12.10.2012.
ii) Serial numbers of notes used in the note sheets of file
numbers quoted above in connection with the disciplinary
106
proceeding case against Shri Swarajit Sharma, Forester
drawn vide memo No. F. 19(722)/Vig/For-2010/1660-64
dated 23.04.2010 including copy of notes, comments etc. of
officials and the copy of related correspondence made
with Sri Sharma, Forester all others from this file with in the
period 01.07.2011 to 12.10.2012.
iii) Serial numbers of notes in the note sheets.
iv) Copy of note sheets along with comments of different
officials from this file regarding disciplinary proceeding case
against Sri Swarajit Sharma, Forester.
v) Copy of correspondences made with Shri Swarajit
Sharma, Forester and with other officials from this file
regarding disciplinary proceeding case against Shri Swarajit
Sharma, Forester.”
5. The provision of section 8(1)(h) of the Act under which
disclosure of information has been denied is reproduced
below:
“there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- information
which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension of prosecution of offenders”
During hearing, the Complainant submitted before the
Commission that despite direction from the FAA of the Forest
Department, the SPIO did not provide the information. The
Complainant further submitted that as the inquiry authority
had already submitted its report in connection with the
departmental proceedings against Shri S. Sharma, and no
further action, other than issue of order by the Disciplinary
Authority was pending, there was no apprehension that
disclosure of the information as had been sought for would
impede the process of investigation. The SPIO also
confirmed the above position in respect of status of the
107
enquiry and submitted that all the activities including
submission of enquiry report had been completed and the
matter was pending before the Disciplinary Authority for
issue of an order.
6. While the terms “investigation”, “apprehension” and
“prosecution” are well-defined and the processes are
clearly demarcated in Criminal Procedure Code, the term
“investigation” has a different connotation in Civil and
Administrative Laws as proceedings under Civil and
Administrative Laws are referred to as “investigation” or
alternatively as “enquiry” till a competent authority takes a
final decision in the matter. As soon as an investigation or an
enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and
Administrative matters comes to an end, and the
investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it
cannot be said to be the end of investigation, as receipt of
investigating officer’s report by the competent authority
may be followed by a host of other actions such as
commencement of disciplinary proceedings, further enquiry
calling of further report and so on, which themselves assume
the characteristics of “investigation” that can truely be
concluded only with the decision by the competent
authority. Under the RTI Act, the word “investigation” needs
to be liberally interpreted and the exemption cover under
section 8(1)(h) of the Act should also be made available to
all proceedings pending a final decision by a competent
authority. The Commission observes that some of the items of
information as has been sought for has no bearing on the
ongoing investigation and there is no reason to withhold the
information. While inspection of file No. F. 19(722)/Vig/For-
2010 and F. No. 19(645)/Vig/For- 2006, containing report of
108
the inquiry authority and other evidence fall squarely within
the exemption of section 8(1)(h) and may be withheld, other
items of information as has been sought for vide item no- (i)
and part of (v) on copies of correspondence made with Sri
S. Sharma needs to be disclosed. The Commission directs
the SPIO to provide the above information. The Commission
further directs the SPIO to provide access to information
comprising that part of the record which does not contain
any information which is exempt from disclosure under the
Act after reasonably severing them from any part that
contains exempt information, following section 10 of the Act.
7. With the above observations and the order, the
complaint stands disposed of.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the complainant and
the OP free of cost. Also send a copy of this order to the
FAA and the Public Authority of the Forest Department.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
109
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Complaint No. TIC- 25 of 2012-13/ April 11, 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copy to:- 1. Sri Bimalendu Roy, C/O Roy Villa, Math Choumohni, Jail Road, P.O.- Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura – 799 007 (Complainant) 2. Sri R.K. Tripura, office of the PCCF, Government of Tripura, Gurkhabasti, Agartala (State Public Information Officer) – OP. 3. The First Appellate Authority in the office of the PCCF, Government of Tripura, Gurkhabasti, Agartala. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Office of the PCCF, Government of Tripura, Gurkhabasti, Agartala (Public Authority).
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri BhS/O LDhalP.O.
1. Sri(First 2. SAgar-------
A
hajan Ch. DLate Benimeswar Road – Dhaleswa
i Kiran Gitt Appellate ri R. Reangrtala (State---------------
Re
W
Au
be
Ad
Di
(S
TRIPUP.
Appeal
Debnath adhab Debd No- 11 (nar, Agartala
e, District MAuthority).
g, Additiona Public Info---------------
Appe
espondent
West Tripura
uthority (FA
efore the C
dditional D
istrict, Aga
PIO) is pres
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
Nos. TIC –
bnath ear bundh
a 799 007…
Magistrate al District M
ormation Of----------------
ODated
llant Sri Bh
1 Sri Kiran
a District,
AA) is abse
Commission
District Ma
rtala and
ent.
110
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
– 01, 02 &
) ………………
Vs & Collecto
Magistrate fficer)………---------------
Da Da
ORDER d 05.06.20
hajan Ch.
Gitte, Distr
Agartala
ent by a
n. The Re
agistrate &
the State
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
& 03 of 20
………………
or, West Tri
& Collecto………………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
11
Debnath
ict Magistra
and the
petition da
espondent
& Collecto
Public Info
ON
012-13
…………….A
ipura Distric
or, West Trip…................R----------------
ring: e of order:
is present
ate & Colle
First Appe
ated 04.06
2 Sri R. Re
r, West Tr
ormation O
Appellant
ct, Agartal
pura Districespondent---------------
05.06.2012 05.06.2012
. The
ector,
ellate
6.2012
eang,
ripura
Officer
a
ct, ts --
2 2
111
2. Appellant Sri Bhajan Debnath had filed three
applications under the RTI Act on 29.08.2011, 29.09.2011 and
on 30.09.2011 before the SPIO, office of the District
Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District. The SPIO of the
West Tripura District supplied some information against the
items of information as sought vide these three applications
and intimated the Appellant that the remaining items of
information as requested for were under the custody of the
Law Cell of the office. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the
SPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the FAA.
However, the FAA also upheld the decision of the SPIO.
Being aggrieved with the orders of the SPIO and the FAA,
the Appellant had approached this Commission for
direction to the SPIO to supply the remaining items of
information, as solicited by him vide his applications dated
29.08.2011, 29.09.2011 and on 30.09.2011 to the SPIO and the
Additional District Magistrate & Collector of the West Tripura
District. The Commission had registered these second
appeals as Appeal No. TIC - 01 of 2012-13, No. TIC- 02 of
2012-13 and No. TIC- 03 of 2012-13 and for sake of
convenience all these three second appeals of the
Appellant had been taken together for decision as the
appeals were of similar nature, and all these appeals were
against the same public authority.
3. Heard the Appellant and the SPIO and perused the
representations as submitted by both the parties. During
hearing of Appeal No. TIC- 01 of 2012-13, the Appellant
submitted that he had requested for 5 (five) items of
information, while only 1 (one) item of information was
received by him. In Appeal No. TIC -02 of 2012-13, the
Appellant requested for 11 (eleven) items of information, out
112
of which only 7 (seven) items of information had been
supplied. In Appeal No. TIC-03 of 2012-13, the Appellant
requested for 38 (thirty-eight) items of information and had
received only 17 (seventeen) items of information. The
Appellant further argued that though the information
solicited pertained to the years 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988 and
1992 and could not be supplied by the SPIO as these were
very old records and were not available, the information
sought were in respect of some LA cases, pending before
the Court of LA Judge for enhancement of compensation
amount. The Appellant has submitted that as the matter is
sub-judice, these are living records and a large number of
citizens whose land has been acquired by the Government
would be deprived of the higher rate of compensation as
they will not be eligible to claim the benefits for want of
required data in respect of acquisition of their land, copies
of which have been sought by the Appellant vide his
application before the SPIO. The Appellant, therefore, is
upset and has expressed his grievances against the SPIO.
Further, the Appellant agitated that the letters dated
22.11.2011, 19.10.2011 and 19.10.2011 stated to have been
issued by the Department have not been received by the
Appellant. The SPIO, on the other hand submitted that they
had vigorously searched for the documents. A search team
had also been formed to locate the information. However,
the records could not be found out despite all efforts and
hence some items of information as sought for could not be
supplied to the Appellant. The LA cell of the Department
was also asked to locate the documents, but the records
could not be traced there also.
113
4. After careful consideration of the entire issue, the
Commission has noted that there is evidence of exercise of
diligence by all concerned to collect and supply the
information to the Appellant. In over all consideration of all
factors, the Commission can only direct the SPIO to give a
reply to the Appellant stating clearly the items of information
that could not be supplied as the records were not available
in the office. The Appellant alleged that some of the
information supplied were not correct, and he had
approached the officers concerned in the District
Magistrate’s office for correction of the data supplied to
him. The SPIO and the FAA may look into the issue and
expedite supply of correct records duly authenticated within
10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this order. In
respect of letters dated 22.11.2011, 19.10.2011 and
19.10.2011 of the Department stated to have not been
received by the Appellant, the Commission directs the SPIO
to supply copies of these letters, after proper authentication
to the Appellant within 10 (ten) days from the date of
receipt of this order. The Commission advises the SPIO to get
the old records organized properly after following the
guidelines as contained in the Office Procedure Manuel. No
short cut process can solve these problems. The Commission
also advises the SPIO and the FAA to modernize the Record
Room and nominate one official as Record Officer to be the
custodian of all old records, specially the L A case
documents. District Magistrate may formulate Record
Retention Schedule for his office to avoid ambiguity in
respect of retention or destruction of records in the office.
5. With the above observations and the order, the
second appeal stands disposed of.
114
6. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and the
Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appeal Nos. TIC- 01, 02 & 03 of 2012-13/ June 05, 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Bhajan Ch. Debnath, S/O Late Benimadhab Debnath, Dhaleswar Road No- 11 (near bundh), P.O. – Dhaleswar, Agartala 799 007 (Appellant). 2. Sri Kiran Gitte, District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala (First Appellate Authority). 3. Sri R. Reang, Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Mr. AB 203Plot NSectoMah
1. ThTripu2. DUnive-------
Aseem Cha3, Shree ShaNo. 268, Neor 10, Khargarashtra – 4
he Vice Chra (First App
Dr. Snehalaersity, P.O. –---------------
Mum
dated
perso
Chan
Unive
No. 2
Office
TRIPUP.
App
andra agun Buildinear Kopra Gghar, Navi M401 210……
ancellor, ICpellate Autta Behura– Kamalgha---------------
Appellan
bai, Maha
d 05.09.20
onal appea
ncellor and
ersity, Tripur
2 Dr. Sneha
er (SPIO, IC
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
eal No. T
ng Gaon, Mumbai
………..………
CFAI Univerhority). , the Statat, Sadar, W----------------
ODated
t Sri Aseem
rashtra is a
012 throug
arance. Th
the First A
ra is absen
alata Behu
FAI Universi
115
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
TIC – 06
………………Vs
rsity, Tripura
e Public IWest Tripura---------------
Da Da
ORDER d 05.09.20
m Chandra
absent afte
h e-mail
he Respon
Appellate A
nt without a
ura and the
ity) is prese
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
of 2012-1
………………
a P.O. – Ka
nformationa ……………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
12
presently
er sending
seeking e
dent No.
Authority (FA
any step. T
e State Pu
nt.
ON
13
……….Comp
amalghat, S
n Officer in………...Opp----------------
ring: e of order:
residing at
an applic
exemption
1 who is
AA) of the
The Respon
blic Inform
plainant
Sadar, Wes
n the ICFAposite Partie---------------
05.09.2012 05.09.2012
Navi
cation
from
Vice
ICFAI
ndent
mation
st
AI es --
2 2
116
2. Appellant Sri Aseem Chandra had filed an
application under the Right to Information Act on 14.01.2012
before the SPIO, ICFAI University, Tripura seeking four items of
information. As the concerned SPIO did not respond to his
request, the Appellant filed a complaint before the Commission
‘on line’ on 25.02.2012. The Commission directed the Appellant
to approach the FAA of the ICFAI University, Tripura for supply of
the items of information as sought for by him. The Appellant
accordingly filed an appeal before the FAA of the ICFAI
University, Tripura on 29.02.2012, which was stated to have been
received by the ICFAI University, Tripura on 12.03.2012. The FAA
vide his order on 09.04.2012 directed the SPIO to furnish the
information available with ICFAI University, Tripura to the
Appellant within 30 days. In response to the order of the FAA,
the SPIO of the ICFAI University, Tripura supplied the requested
information to the Appellant, which according to the Appellant
was incomplete and ambiguous. The Appellant, therefore,
preferred this second appeal before the Commission to have
access to the information as sough for by him.
3. Perused the documents submitted before the
Commission by the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 and
heard the SPIO. The Appellant vide his application dated
14.01.2012 had requested for four items of information. In
response to the request, the SPIO of ICFAI University supplied the
information on 16.04.2012. However, the Appellant was not
satisfied with the information thus supplied by the SPIO and
approached the Commission on 26.07.2012. The Appellant vide
his petition before the SPIO sough for the following information:-
“i) Is a person holding a Masters Degree in Logistics
Management from ICFAI University, Tripura through distance
learning mode, eligible to appear for UGC NET (Management)
117
given that he fulfills other criteria (of age,% etc) as laid out by
UGC?
ii) Is a person holding a Masters Degree in Logistics
Management from ICFAI University, Tripura through distance
learning mode, eligible to get admission in Ph.D. (Management)
in any Government University or Institute (e.g. IIT, NIT, etc) given
that he fulfills other admission criteria?
iii) Is Masters Degree in Logistics Management offered by
Directorate of Distance Education, ICFAI University, Tripura
approved & recognized by the joint committee of UGC-AICTE-
DEC? In case it is not, please let me know its implications on a
candidate pursuing the above course.
iv) Do separate approvals given by UGC & DEC for the above
course have the same significance as an approval give by the
joint committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC? In case it is not, please
provide me the details.”
The information supplied by the SPIO, ICFAI, University
against each item of request of the Appellant is as below:
“(i) The degree conferred by the University is in
accordance with Sec 22 of the UGC Act. As far eligibility
to appear for said exam be checked with the requisite
regulator.
(ii) ICFAI University, Tripura has been approved by the
University Grants Commission under Sec 2(f) of the UGC
Act, 1956. Any PG degree holder is eligible to pursue a
Ph. D program in the concerned subject provided he
satisfied himself with other laid down conditions of the
concerned University.
118
(iii) ICFAI University, Tripura is one of the University having
necessary approval for offering distance education
programs.
(iv) The query is in the nature of seeking an opinion from
the PIO, which is beyond the scope of the provisions of
the Act.”
4. Perused the replies as furnished by the SPIO to the
Appellant after receiving direction from the FAA. The
Commission noted that the replies to the requests were not
clear and the information supplied was ambiguous and
incomplete. Further, the piece of incomplete information might
have not served the purpose of the Appellant and hence he
had approached the Commission seeking directions to the SPIO
to supply the specific and relevant information as sought for by
him. On reply to item no (i) of the petition, the SPIO was required
to forward the portion of the request of the Appellant to the
‘requisite regulator’ within five days from date of receipt of the
petition seeking information with a copy to the Appellant as
required under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, an
authenticated copy of section 22 of UGC Act, as referred by
the SPIO, should have been forwarded to the Appellant. The
SPIO is now directed to complete the above actions
immediately. In respect of information furnished against item no
(iii) of the request, the Commission agrees with the Appellant
and believes that such twisted information would only confuse
the information seeker that would definitely effect his plans for
higher studies. The SPIO could give specific information to the
Appellant as was given to the Commission on being asked to
explain the position during hearing. The SPIO is now directed to
give the existing status in respect of approval and recognition
of Masters Degree in Logistics Management being offered by
119
Directorate of Distance Education, ICFAI University, Tripura by
Joint Committee of UGC - AICTE -DCE.
5. The Commission observed that too much care was
taken by the ICFAI University, Tripura to part with any information
about status of recognition etc of the University and it was due
to that extra cautiousness that resulted in complicated and
cumbersome replies which was not understood by a student
aspiring for higher studies through distance mode from a distant
location. In the process, there was undue delay to supply such
basic information to the Appellant. The Commission, therefore,
directs the SPIO to complete the above activities within a
period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this order
and submit a compliance report to the Commission.
6. With the above observation and the order, the
second appeal stands disposed of.
7. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and the
Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
120
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appeal No. TIC-06 of 2012-13/ September 05, 2012 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copy to:- 1. Mr. Aseem Chandra, B 203, Shree Shagun Building, Plot No. 268, Near Kopra Gaon, Sector 10, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401 210 (Appellant). 2. The Vice Chancellor, ICFAI University, Tripura P.O. – Kamalghat, Sadar, West Tripura (First Appellate Authority). 3. Dr. Snehalata Behura, the State Public Information Officer in the ICFAI University, P.O. – Kamalghat, Sadar, West Tripura.
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri HaS/O SJail RAgar
1. ThAgar2. SrAshra………-------
aradhan ChSri N.C. BanRoad (Opportala: West
e Chief Exertala (First Ari Asim Saham Choum………………---------------
Re
M
ab
Sa
C
(S
TRIPUP.
App
handra Bannik osite to PurTripura……
ecutive OffiAppellate Aha, Execut
mohni, Agar………………---------------
Appe
espondent
unicipal Co
bsent witho
aha, Execu
ouncil (AM
PIO) is pres
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
eal No. T
nik
rbasha) ……..………
icer, AgartaAuthority). tive Officetala (State
………………----------------
ODated
llant Sri Har
No. 1 and
ouncil bein
out any st
utive Offic
MC) and t
ent.
121
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
TIC – 07
………………Vs
ala Municip
r, East Zon Public Infor
………………---------------
Da Da
ORDER d 21.09.20
radhan Ch
the Chief E
g the First A
ep. The Re
cer, East Z
he State P
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
of 2012-1
………………
pal Council
ne, Agartarmation Off………………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
12
andra Bani
Executive O
Appellate A
espondent
Zone, Aga
Public Info
ON
13
…………Ap
, Paradise C
ala Municipficer). …………Res----------------
ring: e of order:
ik is presen
Officer, Aga
Authority (FA
No. 2 Sri
rtala Mun
ormation O
ppellant
Choumohn
pal Counc
spondents ---------------
21.09.2012 21.09.2011
t. The
artala
AA) is
Asim
icipal
Officer
ni,
il,
--
2 1
122
2. Appellant Sri Haradhan Chandra Banik submitted
before the Commission that he had filed an application
under the RTI Act on 10.01.2012 before the SPIO, AMC, East
Zone, Agartala seeking certain items of information. The
concerned SPIO of the AMC, East Zone vide his letter dated
10.02.2012 had supplied one item of information only to the
Complainant as the records were not traceable in AMC,
East Zone. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the first
appeal before the Chief Executive Officer and the FAA of
AMC, Agartala on 25.03.2012. However, the FAA remained
silent on the first appeal and on behalf of the FAA, the SPIO
of the AMC, Central Zone vide letter dated 02.06.2012
communicated the decision of the SPIO of East Zone to the
Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant approached this
Commission with the second appeal seeking appropriate
direction to the AMC to supply the information as sought for
by him.
3. Heard the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 and
perused the documents as submitted by the Appellant and
the Respondents, placed before the Commission. The
Appellant vide his application dated 10.01.2012 had
requested for the following items of information:
“i) Whether Dr. Dilip Das obtained permission from AMC for
constructing the 1st floor on joint roof old building of
independent ownership separated by a common wall.
ii) A copy of permission along with plan, drawings and no-
objection certificate of neighboring dweller, if any etc.
iii) Copy of enquiry report from AMC before getting
permission for construction after his purchase.
123
iv) Action and fate of the following letters given to the
Municipal Authority before commencing construction of 1st
floor building of Dr. Dilip Das.
a) Addressed to the Assessor, AMC vide no. 2087-2088 dt.
23.03.2004 copy to the Executive officer, AMC (copy
enclosed for ready reference).
b) Addressed to the Chair-person AMC no: 1052 dt.
16.02.2004 (Copy enclosed).
c) Addressed to the Assessor, AMC vide no. 994 dt.
13.02.2004 (Copy enclosed).
d) Addressed to the Chair-person, AMC, copy to the
Assessor, AMC vide no: 1002 dt. 16.02.2004 (copy enclosed).
e) Addressed to the Assessor, AMC vide no. 4326 dt.
05.10.2002.
f) Addressed to the Executive Member, Chair-person-in-
Council, vide no: 8591 dt. 16.02.2004 (Copy enclosed)”.
4. During hearing, the Appellant submitted before the
Commission that despite repeated persuasion by him, the
AMC did not supply the requested information and even
after filing the first appeal, the FAA did not give him any
hearing and a similar reply as was given earlier by the SPIO,
East Zone was again sent by the SPIO only. The SPIO of East
Zone, AMC and the OP No. 2 submitted before the
Commission that as the required information was transferred
to the Central Zone, AMC as those were related to that
Zone, he approached the Central Zone for supply of the
relevant document. However, the file containing information
as sought for was not traceable in the Central Zone also. The
SPIO further submitted that as the office of the Central Zone
was shifted from the old office to a new building, the records
must have been misplaced and lost and the file could not
124
be traced even after vigorous search conducted by officials
of both the East and Central Zone offices of the AMC. As a
result, the information could not be supplied to the
Appellant despite sincere efforts. The Appellant also agreed
with the statement as made by the SPIO in respect of his
efforts to trace the records.
5. The Commission expressed serious concern over
mismanagement of records by the AMC. There is no system
of deciding longevity of particular records in AMC as is done
in the Government under Record Retention Schedule (RRS)
to decide which records are to be destroyed after how
many years to clear the record room to adjust new records
which would be sent for proper maintenance. The
Commission held that proper record management is not
only an inherent part of the RTI Act but efficient
management of records for quick retrieval of files to share
past experience in decision making process is a good
governance initiative. Moreover, misplacing files without
support of Rules under RRS amounts to destruction of
government documents without authority by the officer,
who may be the custodian of the files. Such a situation calls
for proceedings against the erring officials. The Commission
is constrained to observe that the manner in which an
appeal has been disposed of is a sad commentary on the
functioning of our service delivery organizations. The
Commission directs the AMC to have its firm data base on
computer, apart from arranging their physical records
systematically to ensure supply of information to citizens.
125
6. With the above observations, the second appeal
stands disposed of.
7. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and
the Respondents free of cost. A copy of this order also be
sent to the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Urban
Development Department for taking suitable action.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appeal No. TIC- 07 of 2012-13/ September 21, 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Haradhan Chandra Banik, S/O Sri N.C. Banik, Jail Road (Opposite to Purbasha), Agartala, West Tripura (Appellant). 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Agartala Municipal Council, Paradise Chowmohni, Agartala (First Appellate Authority). 3. Sri Asim Saha, Executive Officer, East Zone, Agartala Municipal Council, Ashram Choumohni, Agartala (State Public Information Office). 4. Sri A. Jindal, Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Urban Development Department, Capital Complex, Agartala.
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri BaS/O MA.K. Agar
1. SrDepa2. SrCap………-------
adal Kanti CManindra KRoad, Westrtala -79900
ri C.K. Jaartment, Cari S.R. Das, Dital Comple………………---------------
Respo
Gove
Autho
Secre
the St
TRIPUP.
App
Choudhury Kr. Choudhut Joynagar 01: West Trip
matia, Joiapital ComDeputy Secex, Agartala………………---------------
Appellan
ondent No
ernment of
ority (FAA)
etary to the
tate Public
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
eal No. T
ury pura…………
nt Secretamplex, Agartcretary to ta (State Pu
………………----------------
ODated
t Sri Bada
o. 1 Sri C.
Tripura, R D
and the Re
e Governm
Information
126
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
TIC – 08
…..…………Vs
ary to thetala (First Ahe Governblic Informa
………………---------------
Dat Da
ORDER d 25.09.20
al Kanti C
.K. Jamatia
D Departme
espondent
ment of Trip
n Officer (S
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
of 2012-1
………………
e Governmppellate Aument of Triation Office………………---------------
te of heariate of issue
12
houdhury
a, Joint Se
ent and the
No. 2 Sri S
pura, R D D
PIO) are pr
ON
13
………........A
ment of Truthority). pura, R D Der). ………….. R----------------
ing: 2e of order:
is present.
ecretary to
e First Appe
S.R. Das, De
Department
resent.
Appellant
ripura, R
Departmen
espondent---------------
25.09.2012 25.09.2012
. The
o the
ellate
eputy
t and
D
t,
ts --
2 2
127
2. Appellant Sri Badal Kanti Choudhury had submitted
an application before the SPIO and the Deputy Secretary of R D
Department under the Right to Information Act along with
requisite fees of Rs. 10/- on 18.04.2012 seeking certain items of
information. As the custodians of the information were all the
BDOs and the Panchayat Department of the State, the SPIO of
RD Department forwarded the application of the Appellant to
all the DMs and to the Director, Panchayats with a copy to the
Appellant. The DMs after receiving the application sent them to
the respective BDOs of the Districts to supply the information to
the Appellant within the time. Some of the BDOs located the
huge documents as sought for by the Appellant and requested
the Appellant to deposit fees towards copying the documents
@ Rs. 2/- per page. The BDO, Kadamtala, for example located
the entire documents as sought for from the Kadamtala Block
and calculated the stationery charges towards supply of
documents to be Rs. 2,09,260/- (Rupees two lacs nine thousand
two hundred sixty) only and gave the full calculation @ Rs. 2/-
per page. Similarly, BDO, Panisagar calculated the price for the
documents that comes to Rs. 1,98,138/- and requested the
Appellant to deposit fees and receive the information. These
letters were issued on 9th May, 2012 and 17th May, 2012
respectively which were stated to have been received by the
Appellant on 21.05.2012. The Appellant on the other hand, on
the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of submission of his
petition before the SPIO, RD Department on 18.04.2012, filed the
first appeal before the FAA in the RD Department on 19.05.2012
to supply the information free of cost as the information had not
been given within the statutory period of 30 days. The Appellant
however, did not respond to the letters of BDO, Kadamtala and
the BDO, Panisagar and others who issued letters within the
statutory period of 30 days to deposit the fees and take delivery
128
of the information. The FAA vide his order dated 18.06.2012
requested the Appellant to collect the information after
depositing the fees as intimated by the BDO, Panisagar and the
BDO, Kadamtala. However, the Appellant approached the
Commission with this second appeal seeking direction to the
FAA and the SPIO, RD Department to arrange supply of all
documents as sought for by him free of cost as admissible under
section 7(6) of the Act.
3. The Appellant vide his petition dated 18.04.2012 had
requested for the following information from the SPIO, R D
Department:-
“i) Name & address of the beneficiaries under IAY/SPL. IAY from
2008-2009 to till date (Block wise & Panchayat wise) and
amount incurred for each beneficiaries in cash & material
compound.
ii) Block wise list of the persons with address who received
labour card & number of mandays for each labour engaged by
the respective Panchayat from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (till date)
under NREGA/MGREG Schemes.
iii) Panchayat wise list of the persons with address & site of the
work engaged under SGRY & SGSY from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (till
date).
iv) Name with head of the BPL family in Panchayat, Nagar
Panchayat & Municipal are from 2009 to 2013 (till date) under
BPL survey.
v) Name & address of the beneficiaries under CSS Scheme from
2008-2009 to till date (Block wise & Panchayat wise) conducted
by the respective D M & Collectors.”
129
4. Heard the Appellant and the Respondents and perused
the documents submitted before the Commission by the FAA
and the Appellant. During hearing, the Appellant submitted
that he had received the letters from the BDOs after expiry of
thirty days on 21.05.2012 as recorded by the Appellant on the
body of the letter and claimed that he was allowed under the
Act to get all documents free of cost. The Respondent No. 2
being the SPIO of the RD Department submitted that after
receiving the petition of the Appellant he had transferred the
petition to the DMs and to the Director of Panchayats on
02.05.2012 to arrange supply of the required information to the
Appellant within the statutory period as he was not the
custodian of the information.
5. The Commission noted that the SPIO in the RD
Department took fourteen days to forward the petition of the
Appellant to the DMs and to the Director of Panchayats, while
he was required to complete the process of transferring the
petition within five days from the date of receipt of the petition
of the information seeker as contained under section 6(3) of the
Act. The Commission further noted that while the SPIO knew
that the actual custodians of the information were the BDOs, he
forwarded the petition on 02.05.2012 to the DMs and the
Director, Panchayats directing them to arrange supply of such
huge documents through the BDOs within 16 days knowing well
that the letters sent through post would take at least 7-8 more
days to reach their destinations to the BDOs after being
forwarded by the DMs. On being asked to explain such action
and reason for delay in forwarding the petition, the SPIO and
the Deputy Secretary of the RD Department submitted before
the Commission that the delay in forwarding the letter was due
to time taken to obtain permission of the higher authorities to
130
forward them to all the DMs in the State. This action of the SPIO
was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The
Departments have designated their SPIOs to discharge their
duties following the provisions of the RTI Act independently and
if consultation was required, that could have been completed
within five days. Again, since the BDOs were the custodians of
the voluminous documents, the letters were required to be sent
to the BDOs direct by the SPIO with intimation to the Appellant
that arranging such voluminous documents would take some
time.
6. During hearing, the Appellant placed before the
Commission more letters as received by the Appellant from
many other BDOs requesting the Appellant to deposit fees as
computed by the BDOs towards charges for copying the
documents, which were not less than Rs.1 lac in respect of
records of one Block. The Appellant argued that as these letters
were delivered to him on 21.05.2012 by the Post office, which is
also a government organization, the government was to be
blamed for delay in communicating him the message to
deposit fees for obtaining the information. Thus, the Appellant
argued that he was entitled to get information free of cost as
the information for deposit of fees did not reach him within the
statutory period of 30 days from the date of submission of his
petition seeking information before the SPIO of RD Department,
Government of Tripura at Agartala.
7. The Commission observed that the Appellant had
committed serious mistake in seeking exemption to pay the
fees, for obtaining the voluminous documents as the RTI Act,
2005 under section 7(3)(a) allows the SPIOs to exclude the
period between the ‘dispatch’ and not ‘receipt’ of the
131
information in respect of deposit of fees and ‘payment of fees’
by the Appellant, which would be excluded for the purpose of
calculating the period of thirty days.
8. The Commission further noted that the attitude of the
Appellant was more polemical than a quest for information.
Huge voluminous documents containing information in respect
of all Blocks in the State was sought, for which the respective
SPIOs had requested the Appellant to deposit the fees towards
cost of photocopying the documents. The Commission noted
the endeavour of the BDOs who arranged such large variety of
records and were willing to make copies of all these records for
providing them to the Appellant. If the Appellant is interested in
the information, he must deposit the cost as computed by the
SPIOs in the Blocks following provisions of the Act and obtain
copies of the documents and there is no reason why the
information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant.
Accordingly, the Commission finds no merit in second appeal
and disposes of the same.
9. With the above observations, the second appeal
stands disposed of.
10. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant
and the Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
132
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION
P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appeal No. TIC-08 of 2012-13/ September 25, 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Badal Kanti Choudhury, S/O Manindra Kr. Choudhury, A.K. Road, West Joynagar, Agartala -799001: West Tripura (Appellant) 2. Sri C.K. Jamatia, Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura, R D Department, Capital Complex, Agartala (First Appellate Authority). 3. Sri S.R. Das, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, R D Department, Capital Complex, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(K.B. Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri HaS/O LVill- SP.O.-West
1. SriAgar2. SrSepa-------
ari Sadhan Late SitanaShibnagar (- Agartala Ct Tripura……
i N. Biswas,rtala (First Ai D.L. Deb
ahijala, (Sta-----------------
Respo
Distric
Respo
Inspe
(SPIO
2.
18.04
TRIPUP.
A
Sen ath Sen (near GeduCollege – 7
………………
, District EdAppellate Anath, Inspe
ate Public In----------------
Comp
ondent No
ct Zonal Off
ondent No.
ctorate, Bi
) are also p
The A
.2012 befo
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
Appeal No
u Mia’s Mas799 004
……….………
ducation OAuthority) ector of Scnformation ----------------
Date
plainant Sr
o. 1 Sri N.
fice and th
. 2 Sri D.L. D
shalgarh a
present.
ppellant Sri
ore the S
133
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
. TIC – 11 of
szid)
………………Vs
Officer, Wes
chools, EduOfficer)……-----------------
ORDER d 30.11.201
ri Hari Sa
Biswas, Dis
he First App
Debnath, In
and the Sta
i Hari Sadha
SPIO, offic
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
f 2012-13
………………
st District Zo
ucation Ins………………----------------
Date of he Date of iss
12
adhan Sen
strict Educa
ellate Auth
nspector of
ate Public
an Sen filed
e of Insp
ON
………….Ap
onal Office
spectorate,…………….R
----------------
aring: ue of order
n is prese
ation Offic
hority (FAA)
Schools, Ed
Information
d an applic
pector of
ppellant
e, Kunjaban
, Bishalgarhespondent-----------------
30.11.2012r: 30.11.2012
ent. The
cer, West
and the
ducation
n Officer
cation on
Schools,
n,
h, ts --
2 2
134
Bishalgarh Inspectorate seeking certain items of information under
the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response, the SPIO vide his
letter dated 15.05.2012 furnished the information to the Appellant
as sought for by him. However, the Appellant was not satisfied with
the information as was supplied to him by the SPIO and filed the first
appeal before the District Education Officer, West District Zonal
Office who was also the FAA of the Department on 25.05.2011. But,
as alleged by the Appellant, the notice issued on 14.06.2012 by the
FAA after fixing a date for hearing of the appeal on 22.06.2012 was
received by the Appellant on 22.06.2012 itself at 2.30 P.M. , and as
such the Appellant could not appear for hearing as was
scheduled on 22.06.2012 at 11 A.M. Being dissatisfied with the
action of the SPIO and the FAA, the Appellant preferred this
second appeal before the Commission for appropriate direction to
the SPIO and the FAA for disclosure of the information as was
sought for by the Appellant. The Commission considered the
representation of the Appellant and admitted it as a second
appeal.
3. Heard the Appellant and the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
and perused the documents submitted by the Appellant and the
Respondents. The Appellant vide his petition dated 18.04.2012 had
sought for the following items of information:
“(1) A copy of the rules under which the payment of sanctioned
house rent allowance of Smt. Anju Banik, A/T (now retd.) was
discontinued by the I/S, Bishalgarh on the basis of verbal order
without confirming it in writing immediately there after as per rule
3(2)(iii) of Tripura State Civil Service Conduct Rules,1988.
(2) A copy of the letter/documents on the basis of which the I/S
Bishalgarh furnished his reply/information in para -2 to the District
Education Officer, West District Zonal office regarding the causes of
discontinuation of the payment of sectioned house rent allowance
135
of Smt. Anju Banik, A/T (now retd.) vide his letter No. F. 1(1-RTI)IS-
BSL/06 dated 26.04.2010.
(3) A copy of the letter on the basis of which the I/S, Bishalgarh
furnished his reply to the SPIO, o/o the Directorate of School
Education Deptt. vide his letter No. F. 1(1-RTI)/IS-BSL/1586
dt.14.12.2010 regarding discontinuation of the payment of
sanctioned house rent allowance of Smt. Anju Banik, A/T now retd.
(4) Regarding the causes of discontinuation of the payment of
sanctioned housed rent allowance of Smt. Anju Banik,A/T w.e. from
1.3.94, the I/S Bishalgarh vide his letter No.F. 1(1-RTI)/IS-BSL/06 dt.
26.4.2010 stated that in the year 1994-95 in a monthly meeting of his
with the Headmaster of his control a stipulated time bar instruction
was given to them for submission of joint declaration by all the
employees who were under the drawal control of his inspectorate.
As the year 1994-95 consists of 12 (twelve) months which starts from
1.4.94 and ends on 31.3.95. The exact date of monthly meeting out
of the total numbers of monthly meetings held in the year 1994-95
in which month and on which date the stipulated time bar
instruction was given to the Headmaster of his control for
submission of joint declaration by all the employees who were
under the drawal control of his inspectorate.
(5) On return from LTC journey Smt. Anju Banik, A/T of chesrimai
High Shool under the drawal control of Bishalgarh Education
Inspectorate submitted an earned leave application in prescribed
form dully filled in the Bishalgarh I/S office with the request to
sanction 6(six) days earned leave w.e.from 13.10.06 to 18.10.06
prefixing puja holidays from 29.09.06 to 12.10.06 with station leave
permission from 29.9.06 to 18.10.06. In this state of affairs what
action was taken by the I/S Bishalgarh to regularize the period of
afore mentioned leave. A copy of the aforesaid leave sanctioned
memo on the basis of which the monthly leave salary for the month
of October/2006 was paid to Smt. Banik, A/T in February, 2007.
136
(6) In reply to the show cause notice which addressed to the I/S
Bishalgarh Smt. Santi bala Deb Barma, OS deny the fact of
sanctioning of earned leave in favour of Smt. Anju Banik,A/T on
behalf of the I/S Bishalgarh. To bring the truth into the light what
action was taken by the I/S Bishalgarh in this respect. Whether the
initial signature of Smt Santi bala Debbarma was identified by the
I/S Bishalgarh Of so, a copy of the said identification report. f not,
on what basis the I/S Bishalgarh has given a clean chit to Smt. Santi
bala DebBarma OS who had sanctioned earned leave in favour of
Smt. Anju Banik A/T on behalf of the I/S Bishalgarh for which she
was not empowered. A copy of the said clean chit order. “
4. The Commission observed that the Appellant had earlier
also approached the Commission with applications having similar
grievance and the Commission decided these cases vide Appeal
No. TIC-01 of 2011-12 dated 02.08.2011 and Appeal No. TIC-16 of
2011-12 dated 10.02.2012. The Commission, further observed during
hearing that the Appellant’s main concern was non-receipt of the
written order canceling House Rent Allowance (HRA), which was
earlier sanctioned in favour of Smt. Anju Banik Teacher (Retd.), his
wife as other issues had been settled by then. The Appellant mainly
agitated for producing the rules under which HRA, which was
earlier sanctioned to Smt. Banik was discontinued with effect from
01.03.1994 without giving any written order and only on verbal
instruction of the higher authority of the Department. On being
asked to offer comments on the above allegation of the Appellant,
the SPIO had produced a Memo No. F. 5(3)-FIN(G)/09 dated 5th
May, 2009 of the Finance Department, which gives conditions for
sanction of HRA to employees as the basis for discontinuation of
HRA to Smt. Banik. The Appellant on this, argued that the copy of
the Finance Department as supplied by the SPIO was misleading as
the discontinuation of HRA of his wife was w.e.f. 01.03.1994, while
137
the memo of the Finance Department was issued in the year 2009.
In reply to the above argument, of the Appellant, the SPIO
submitted that as there was no record in his office to support
decision to discontinue the HRA by the then authorities of the
Directorate of School Education, he was unable to submit any
justification or reply to the allegation.
5. The OP placed before the Commission a letter dated
30.10.2010 of the School Education Directorate addressed to the
Inspector of Schools, Bishalgarh to obtain a joint declaration from
the Appellant and his wife to the effect that during the period
under consideration, Smt. Banik, A/T (Retd.) and the Appellant Sri
Hari Sadhan Sen A/T (Retd.) were living separately at different
places.
6. After examining the documents as have been placed
before the Commission during hearing, and after hearing the
Appellant and the Respondents, the Commission is of the opinion
that the grievances of the Appellant are genuine. No government
authority has the right to deprive a government employee of the
benefits she has been enjoying without giving a justification citing
rules/orders under which such benefits may be withdrawn. Not to
speak of justification and citing of provision of Rules, the School
Education Department has not even issued any order and the
Teacher has been deprived of the benefit of HRA on a verbal
instruction to an officer by the ‘higher authority’ of the Department.
The Education Department now decides to correct the irregularity
by obtaining a joint declaration from the couple, for which action
has been initiated by the Department. However, the Commission
has noticed total mistrust on the eyes of the Appellant who has
been agitating again and again that the Department would only
harass him and all these initiatives of the Department are designs to
138
place him in a trap. This mistrust was quite evident from the fact
that when the notice for hearing was received by him on the date
of hearing after the time scheduled for hearing, instead of
approaching the FAA, the Appellant preferred to approach the
Commission only. This is a very painful observation that the
Commission has made from the actions of two retired school
teachers who served under the Department for not less than 25-30
years of prime of their life.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Commission directs the Appellant to act as advised by the
Respondents to come to a logical end to this logjam situation. The
Commission orders the SPIO and the FAA to redress the long
pending grievance immediately and settle the issue by supplying
proper documents within 15 days of receipt of the order. A report
on compliance of the order be sent to the Commission. The
Commission further directs the FAA and the SPIO to be more
careful in respect of management of office records and to adopt
some system of preserving old documents of the Department to
reduce harassment of citizens.
8. With the above observations and orders, the second
appeal stands disposed of.
9. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and the
Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee) State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(R. K. Noatia) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
139
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Appeal No. TIC-11 of 2012-13/ November 30, 2012 ........................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Hari Sadhan Sen, S/O Late Sitanath Sen, Vill- Shibnagar (near Gedu Mia’s Maszid), P.O.- Agartala College – 799 004, West Tripura (Appellant). 2. Sri N. Biswas, District Education Officer, West District Zonal Office, Kunjaban, Agartala (First Appellate Authority)- Respondent No-1. 3. Sri D.L. Debnath, Inspector of Schools, Education Inspectorate, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, (State Public Information Officer)- Respondent No- 2.
(R.K. Noatia) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri ThS/O LP.O. Dhal
1. SriGork2. Sri Agar-------
haithak ReaLate Debra – Upanagaai District–
i P. Bhattackhabasti, Ag Raj Kumarrtala (State---------------
iss
Re
Fo
Au
Tri
St
TRIPUP.
App
ang am Reang ar, P.S. - Am799 289……
charya, Chgartala (Firsr Tripura, DF Public Info---------------
Sri Tha
sue of noti
espondent
orests (P&D
uthority (FA
ipura, DFO,
ate Public
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
eal No. T
mbassa ………………
hief Conserst AppellateFO, Directio
ormation Of----------------
ODated
aithak Rean
ice well in
No 1 Sri P.
D), office o
AA) and th
, Direction
Information
140
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
TIC – 12
………………Vs
rvator of Foe Authority)on Division, fficer)………---------------
Da
Da
ORDER d, 03.01.20
ng is absen
n advance
. Bhattacha
of the PCC
he Respon
Division, of
n Officer (SP
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
of 2012-1
………………
orests (P&D). office of th
………………---------------
ate of hearate of issue
012
nt without a
by the C
arya, Chief
CF and the
ndent No 2
ffice of the
PIO) appea
ON
13
……………A
D), office o
he PCCF, G……………..R----------------
ring: e of order:
any step de
Commission
f Conservat
e First Appe
2 Sri Raj K
e PCCF and
ared.
Appellant
of the PCCF
GorkhabastRespondent---------------
03.01.201 03.01.2013
espite
. The
tor of
ellate
Kumar
d the
F,
ti, ts --
3 3
141
2. Appellant Sri Thaithak Reang vide his representation
before the Commission had submitted that he had filed an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on
28.07.2012 before the SPIO, office of the PCCF, Government
of Tripura, seeking certain items of information. However, as
alleged by the Appellant, the SPIO of the Department did
not supply any information nor did he respond to the
application of the Appellant. Being aggrieved with the
action of the SPIO, the Appellant filed the first appeal before
the FAA of the office of the PCCF, Government of Tripura on
19.09.2012. But, the FAA also did not call him for hearing of
the appeal nor did he give any order to the SPIO to supply
the information. Being dissatisfied with the actions of the
SPIO and the FAA, the Appellant preferred this second
appeal before the Commission seeking direction of the
Commission for appropriate redress. The FAA had also
submitted a representation before the Commission on
26.12.2012 stating chronology of events and actions taken
by the SPIO and the FAA of the Department on the petition
of the Appellant.
3. Heard the Respondents. During hearing, the SPIO
submitted that no petition dated 28.07.2012 under the RTI
Act as stated to have been submitted before the SPIO by
the Appellant was received by the SPIO. However, when the
notice from the FAA of the Department was served upon
him, asking the SPIO to appear before the FAA for hearing,
the SPIO came to know about the application of the
Appellant. The FAA submitted that the appeal petition
dated 19.09.2012 of the Appellant was actually received by
the FAA on 05.11.2012 and the date for hearing of the first
appeal was accordingly fixed on 18.12.2012. The notices
142
were also served on the SPIO and the Appellant asking them
to appear for hearing on 18.12.2012. The FAA further
submitted that during hearing of the case it was noticed
that a copy of the petition to SPIO and the money receipt as
was received by the Appellant during submission of his
petition before the SPIO were not enclosed with the appeal
petition submitted before the FAA. As the required under the
provision of the Act and the Rules, these conditions had not
been fulfilled and hence, no direction could be issued by
the FAA to the SPIO to provide excess to information as was
sought for by the Appellant. However, the FAA advised the
representative of the Appellant who appeared on behalf of
the Appellant to submit a fresh petition, addressed to the
SPIO again along with the requisite fees of Rs. 10/- to enable
the SPIO to supply the information as had been sought for.
4. Examined the representation dated 26.12.2012 of the
FAA and heard both the Respondents. As the Appellant did
not appear before the Commission despite issue of notice, it
was presumed that he might have complied with the
directions of the FAA to get the information. This was more
likely in view of the fact that direction of the FAA was issued
on 18.12.2012 and the notice from the Commission was also
issued on 18.12.2012 and the Complainant might have
preferred to take shorter route to receive the information
straight from the SPIO. Further, the SPIO and the FAA also
confirmed that after receipt of the application, they would
be in a position to supply the information as had been
sought for.
5. In view of the above position, the second appeal
stands disposed of.
143
6. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and
the Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Appeal No. TIC-12 of 2012-13/ January 03, 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Thaithak Reang, S/O Late Debram Reang, P.O. – Upanagar, P.S. – Ambassa, Dhalai District– 799 289 (Appellant). 2. Sri P. Bhattacharya, Chief Conservator of Forests (P&D), office of the PCCF, Gorkhabasti, Agartala (First Appellate Authority). 3. Sri Raj Kumar Tripura, DFO, Direction Division, office of the PCCF, Gorkhabasti, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(K.B.Choudhury) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
Sri SaMayaP.O.-Bihar
1. SriAgar2. SmAbho-------
amir Chakmasarovar A- Bodhgayar – 824 231…
Ratish Majrtala (First A
mti Shyamaoynagar, A-----------------
Bodh
appe
Sri R
Resea
Appe
Debb
Inform
TRIPUP.
A
ma rea
a, Dist.- Gay………………
jumder, DirAppellate Aali DebbarmAgartala (St
----------------
Appe
gaya, Biha
earance vid
atish Maju
arch & Trai
ellate Autho
barma, Dep
mation Offic
RA INFORMN. Comp
Agarta
Appeal No
ya ………….……
rector, S C Authority) ma, Deputytate Public ----------------
Date
llant Sri S
ar is absent
de his letter
umder, Dir
ning (SCER
ority (FAA) a
puty Direct
cer (SPIO) a
144
MATION Cplex: Gorala – 799
. TIC – 14 of
………………Vs
R E T, Gov
y Director, S Information-----------------
D
ORDER d 05.04.201
Samir Cha
t after seek
r dated 19.0
rector, Sta
T), Govern
and the Re
tor, S C E R
are present
OMMISSIOkhabasti 006
f 2012-13
………………
vernment o
S C R E T, Gn Officer)…---------------- Date of hea Date of iss
13
akma who
king exemp
03.2013. The
ate Counc
ment of Trip
espondent
R T, and al
.
ON
……………A
of Tripura, A
Governmen……………..R
----------------
aring: ue of order
o is statio
ption from
e Responde
cil of Edu
pura being
No. 2 Smti S
so the Stat
Appellant
Abhoynaga
nt of TripuraRespondent-----------------
05.04.2013r: 05.04.2013
oned at
personal
ent No. 1
ucational
g the First
Shyamali
te Public
ar,
a, ts --
3 3
145
2. The Appellant Sri Samir Chakma had filed an application
on 01.06.2012 before the SPIO, SCERT, Government of Tripura
seeking certain items of information under the Right to Information
Act, 2005. The Applicant vide his petition before the Commission
alleged that the concerned SPIO did not respond to the request of
the Appellant made on 01.06.2012 within the stipulated period of
30 days following the provision as contained under section 7(1) of
the Act. Being aggrieved with the action of the SPIO, the Appellant
filed the first appeal on 10.07.2012 before the FAA of SCERT,
Government of Tripura. However, as alleged by the Appellant vide
his petition before the Commission, the FAA also did neither hear
the appeal nor did he issue any order on the appeal. In the
meantime, the SPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2012 had furnished
some information to the Appellant from out of the four items of
information as had been sought for by the Appellant. However, the
Appellant was not at all satisfied with the information as was
forwarded to him by the SPIO, as some items of information were
not provided on the ground that those could not be located and
were ‘being searched’. Being aggrieved with the action of the
SPIO and the FAA, the Appellant preferred this second appeal
before the Commission for appropriate direction to the SPIO and
the FAA for disclosure of all items of the information as were sought
for by the Appellant vide his petition before the SPIO, SCERT under
the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission considered the representation of
the Appellant and admitted it as a second appeal.
3. The Appellant vide his petition dated 01.06.2012 before
the SPIO of SCRET, Government of Tripura had sought for the
following items of information:
146
“(i)) Copy of the notification no. F. 19(8-11)-DSE/88 dated
02.01.1989.
(ii) A copy of the 1st notification after formation of the Tribal
Language Cell including the function, purpose of the Tribal
Language Cell in details.
(iii) ) A copy of the 1st notification/document in details after 1st
formation of the Advisory Committee for the Development of
Chakma Language.
(iv In how many schools in Tripura, the resolution adopted on
07.01.2011 by the Advisory Committee for development of Chakma
language, has been duly implemented so far? Furnish a list of the
schools introduce Chakma Script already from classes I to V in
Tripura as per the said resolution.”
4. Heard the Respondents and perused the documents as
were submitted before the Commission. During hearing of the
case, the FAA of SCERT submitted that most of the items of
information as had been sought for by the Appellant could not be
located as those records were very old and those orders of
government were actually 30-35 years’ old documents of the State.
However, the FAA and SPIO, SCERT have assured the Commission
that as the records are being searched those would be forwarded
to the Appellant, once those could be traced in the office. As
regards the request of the Appellant to forward the part of his
request for information to other Departments of the State, which
might be the custodian of those records, the FAA had submitted
that the related information as had been sought for earlier was with
the Tribal Language Cell under the Directorate of School
Education, which had subsequently been merged with the SCERT in
the year 1996 and hence the records were expected to remain
with the SCERT Department. However, the requested information
147
pertaining to the year 1989 and the other records which were 30-40
years old, could not be located in SCERT. As the search for old
records is still on, the SPIO and the FAA have assured the
Commission that the information would be provided if the records
are traceable in due course.
5. The Commission noted that there is evidence of exercise
of due diligence by all concerned to collect and supply the
information and is convinced that the records are not traceable,
despite sincere efforts to locate them in the SCERT. This is another
classic example of functioning of the Department in an
environment without clear guidance of Record Retention Schedule
and without a sound record management system in place, that
resulted wastage of mandays, efforts of officials and loss of focus
on important issues of the Department in tracing government
records. The Record Retention Schedule of the Department could
have clearly indicated if those records were to be searched and
preserved or were allowed to be destroyed being 30-40 years old
documents. Employees of the government offices cannot remain
all the time engaged in searching misplaced files nor can an
information seeker wait for indefinite period as the supply of
information requested under the RTI Act is not traceable and is
being searched. Moreover, there is a mandate for the Information
Commission to draw a conclusion on the matter.
6. After careful consideration of the entire issue, the
Commission directs the SPIO of SCERT to look for the records once
again and give the final position to the Appellant within 10 days
from the date of receipt of this order with a copy to the Secretary
of this Commission.
148
7. With the above observation and the order, the second
appeal stands disposed of on merit in absence of the Appellant.
8. Let copy of this order be sent to the Appellant and the
Respondents free of cost.
Sd/- (Shyamalima Banerjee)
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary Tripura Information Commission
TRIPURA INFORMATION COMMISSION P.N.COMPLEX; GORKHABASTI: AGARTALA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Appeal No. TIC-14 of 2012-13/ April 05, 2013 ........................................................................................................................................... Copy to:- 1. Sri Samir Chakma, Mayasarovar Area, P.O.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar – 824 231 (Appellant). 2. Sri Ratish Majumder, Director, S C R E T, Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, Agartala (First Appellate Authority). 3. Smti Shyamali Debbarma, Deputy Director, S C R E T, Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, Agartala (State Public Information Officer).
(Dr Manash Dev) Secretary
Tripura Information Commission
149
