PANJIM: The high court of Bombay at Goa recently dismissed a petition filed by deputy collector Johnson Fernandes challenging a fine of Rs 2000 imposed on him by the Goa state information commission (GSIC) for delay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Fernandes, who is also a public information officer (PIO), had failed to give information sought by an applicant Minguel Monterio within a period of 30 days.
The applicant's lawyer Valmiki Menezes submitted that it is the duty of the PIO to supply the information to the RTI applicant within 30 days directly and not by furnishing the information in the pleadings when the matter is taken up in appeal.
The applicant's lawyer Valmiki Menezes submitted that it is the duty of the PIO to supply the information to the RTI applicant within 30 days directly and not by furnishing the information in the pleadings when the matter is taken up in appeal.
The petitioner's advocate, J Lobo, pointed out that information was given to the applicant while giving reply to the first appeal filed by the applicant. As this reply was served on the respondent (applicant), the requirement of giving information was complied with, Lobo said. Therefore, the appeal filed before the GSIC was unwarranted, he contended.
While dismissing the petition, Justice S A Bobde observed thus: "Having regard to the admitted fact that there was a delay in supplying information, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In fact, the information commissioner has shown some degree of leniency in imposing the penalty."
The court also said that if the petitioner intended to furnish the information to the applicant, he could have communicated it without waiting for the applicant to file an appeal.
On May 3, 2010, the applicant had sought to know the name and designation of the officer who had put his notings under his signature in a land revenue case. According to the applicant there was delay of two months in furnishing the information. The information was furnished only after the applicant filed an appeal against the PIO on August 2, 2010. – TNN
What is the big deal Johnson Fernandes.
ReplyDeleteRs 2000 is what you earn, possibly hourly, through commissions,back-handers and bribes.
Forget painting your self as "WHITER THAN WHITE".
These Mamlatdars, Dy. Collectors & Collectors are mostly corrupt and have established a clique just like other government Departments to harass the public and extort money. Who gets caught are the peons and talatis. They are suspended and then in a week quietly reinstated. How is it that the Talati who was suspended in Sanjay Dutt marriage case reinstated within a week? And this Johnson Beddi Fernandes was the Mamlatdar, with the recently suspended Collector in Balli case.
ReplyDeleteAnother crook bureaucrate Johnson.Give him money,he will make any illegal work.....after G.P.Naik these is another trusty Dog of Digambar kamat.
ReplyDelete