STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA
PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039
(Constituted under Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005)
Tel: 0471 2335199, Fax: 0471 2330920
Email: [email protected]
Present:
P.N. Vijayakumar, Honourable State Information Commissioner
Shri. Varghese C. Mathews
Sneha Appliances
Thottaman, Ranni. P.O.
Pin – 689 672.
Requester
Vs
The Public Information Officer
KSRTC
Thiruvananthapuram.
Respondent
ORDER
One Varghese C. Mathews is the requester in this case.
On 21.8.2007, he had requested for five items of information. The request
in original was marked as Ext A1. On receipt of the request, the remarks of the
Public Information Officer, District Transport Office, Pathanamthitta was called
for. It was submitted that an earlier application was abandoned by the requester
and another one demanding the very same information was preferred on
25.9.2007. The same was marked as Ext A2. On 17.10.2007, within the required
time limit a clarification in the matter was sought by the Public Information
Officer. The letter demanding the clarification dated 17.10.2007 was marked as
Ext A3. The detailed report and affidavit of the Public Information Officer was
marked as Ext A4 and Ext A4(a) was the affidavit. The consistent case of the
Public Information Officer was that Shri. Varghese C. Mathews was not the real
requester and on personal enquiry they were satisfied that he was acting for and on
behalf of someone and advancing the request for an employ who had been kept
under suspension.
The case was originally posted for hearing on 29.4.2008. On that day,
Shri. Varghese C. Mathews had sought for an exemption.
1
Today, when this case was taken up for hearing, Shri. Varghese C. Mathews
had deputed and authorized one Shri. Mathews to represent him. The request was
permitted.
The question that arises for consideration is whether, the information
requested was intelligible and whether the Public Information Officer had
furnished the information within the stipulated time?
In the report as well as in the affidavit the consistent case of the Public
Information Officer was that Shri. Varghese C. Mathews was not the person who
had actually sent the request Ext A1. To support their version, the affidavit had
averred in Paragraph No. 1 & 2 that the requested person was contacted over
Phone and Mobile No. 9447094624.
There cannot be a contention
that
Shri. Varghese C. Mathews was a bogus person because there was a Mobile Number
which was owned by him and responded by him. At the most, the address of
Shri. Varghese C. Mathews might have been used by someone else to get the
information. The Public Information Officer has no right to investigate or conduct
an enquiry as to the identity of the person. What was required under section 6(2)
of the Right to Information Act was to obtain so much of information that would
enable the Public Information Officer to contact the requester.
The Public
Information Officer had actually contacted him and therefore the Commission was
convinced that there was a person by name Shri. Varghese C. Mathews. However,
the information was not furnished. But a notice was issued demanding the
informant to come and clarify the ambiguities that were not explained in the
application Ext A1 & Ext A2. The requester did not co-operate with this request
and he refused to appear before the Public Information Officer. The correct
communication under section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act would have been
intimating the ambiguity specifically and demanding for further fee with specific
calculation by arriving at such an amount. No fee was demanded within the
statutory expiry period of 30 days and, no information was furnished, and
therefore the complaint.
Today, when this case was taken up for hearing, Mr. Mathews representing
the requester was present. The then Public Information Officer,
Shri. B. Chandrasekharan Pillai was also present. He had produced photo copies of
all documents. The same was furnished to the representative of the requester free
of cost. Since, the furnishing of the copies was after the expiry of 30 days.
There was a delay in furnishing the information. As per Ext A2, the request
was on 25.9.2007. The information should have been furnished at least partial
information should have been furnished or at least information regarding one item
should have been furnished within 30 days. But, they were going on investigating
regarding the authenticity of the requester and trying to prove the identity. The
written objection and affidavit would also say that the Public Information Officer
was under the impression that the information furnished would have been misused
and this was an unfounded fear or unreasonable apprehension of the Public
Information Officer. The delay in furnishing the information was to be penalized
but the then Public Information Officer had retired from service on 31.1.2008 and
there was a lot of confusion with regard to the person who had made the request.
It was orally submitted that one Shri. Varghese C. Mathews another
2
Shri. Mathews and yet another person by name Shri. George Philip had also
demanded the same information for one and the same person. So, the Public
Information Officer was under utter confusion why three persons demanded the
same information and whether all the three persons were one and the same
persons or three different persons. However, there was some confusion with
regard to the identity of the person concerned and even today, the real requester
was not present. Copies were furnished free of cost but all further steps to invoke
the Penal Provisions are dropped.
Dated this the 16th day of May 2008.
sd/P.N. Vijayakumar
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated copy
Secretary to Commission
ms
3
Authenticated copy
Secretary to Commission
ms
4
5