The Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission (MPSIC) fined with Rs5000 the then Public Information Officer (PIO) and Joint Collector HS Bhadoriya for violating of Right To Information (RTI) Act.
State Information Commissioner (SIC) Atmadeep after hearing the case pronounced the verdict with instructions to submit the fine within seven days to the Commission. He rejected Bhadoriya’s reply to the show-cause notice by terming it illegitimate.
The SIC in its order said that then PIO provided the requisite information to the appellant in the prescribed time limit of 30 days. It was told that the requisite information has been sent by post but the appellant never received that. The first appeal of the appellant was repealed by the first appellant officer and the then Gwalior collector as he was mislead by producing appellants receipt in regard to some other case.
During the hearing in the Commission also such information was presented that was not relevant with the case. The appellant officer after getting his order dismissed by the Commission the appellant officer wrote to the PIO that it is clear from the order of Commission dated February 12, 2015 that the requisite information was not provided to the appellant. Hence, in compliance to the order of the Commission you are directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant compulsorily before March 2, 2015. But the information was not provided even after that.
Not only this, the PIO failed to provide the requisite information to the appellant despite being directed by the Commission two times on February 12 and March 31. The appellant termed PIO’s reply incorrect that on order of Commission the requisite information was sent on the new address by speed post that returned as the appellant was available at that address. Because as per the appellant he did not received any post from the PIO till now.
SIC in his decision said the PIO failed to dispose the RTI application under section 7 of the RTI act instead misleading information was provided to the Commission and Collectors order, he even failed to appear on two hearings without giving any reason neither provided reply to the appeal. Hence finding him guilty of violating Section 7 he is been sentenced with a penalty of Rs5000.