This story is from September 14, 2020

Gujarat HC orders action against officer for denying info under RTI

The Gujarat high court has ordered the state information commissioner to initiate proceedings under the Right to Information (RTI) Act against the mamlatdar of Bhachau in Kutch for his conflicting stands in not furnishing information to an octogenarian.
Gujarat HC orders action against officer for denying info under RTI
Gujarat high court
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court has ordered the state information commissioner to initiate proceedings under the Right to Information (RTI) Act against the mamlatdar of Bhachau in Kutch for his conflicting stands in not furnishing information to an octogenarian.
In this case, Sureshchara Dholakiya, 87, wanted information from the revenue department in Bhachau taluka for the purpose of placing it before the court in an ongoing litigation.

In April 2018, he applied for the information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act .
The mamlatdar, who is the public information officer, refused him the details claiming that it pertained to a third party and cannot be parted because it is privileged information under Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information (RTI) Act .
Dholakiya’s first appeal in the same department did not yield any result, and he approached the state information commission, which in August 2019 directed the officer to furnish the information in 20 days.
The commission observed that information was refused on a flimsy ground and severely criticized the conduct of the information officer.
The mamlatdar, even after the commission’s order, refused information to the senior citizen.

This time, he replied that the details were not available as the documents were lost during the time of the 2001 earthquake.
Dholakiya moved the HC complaining that the officer had not obeyed the information commission’s order.
The HC took notice of the officer’s conflicting stands before the commission and after its order.
Justice A Y Kogje on Thursday observed that the denial of information stating it pertained to a third party leads to assumption that the information was available with the office, but later the official claimed that the records were not found.
“Therefore, the same cannot be accepted by this Court. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding in aforesaid situation that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Public Information Officer and Mamlatdar, Bhachau, has acted in a callous manner as a result of which the petitioner had been deprived from the right of Right to Information,” the court said and ordered for action against the officer under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA