9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1129 - HC - Indian LawsRTI - Missing public records - The case in hand is a classic example, as to how the Government officers for protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act clearly mandates that whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 4 or Section 8 of the said Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Taking into consideration the directions given by the State Information Commission, it was mandatory firstly for Mr. Suresh Kakani and secondly for Mr. S.K. Salimath to set criminal law in motion and leave it to the investigating agency to find out the culprits. In view of the clear direction issued by the Second Appellate Authority, they were bound to set criminal law in motion as the documents could not be traced within the stipulated time. State directed to pay cost of ₹ 15,000/- to the Petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Failure to trace and provide public records. 3. Accountability and liability of government officials. 4. Implementation of the State Information Commission's order. 5. Legal consequences under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005: The Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding a Government Resolution dated 21st August 1996. Despite the Petitioner's efforts, the information was not provided, leading to multiple appeals. The First Appellate Authority directed the Information Officer to search for the file and provide the information. However, the information was still not furnished, prompting the Petitioner to file a Second Appeal. 2. Failure to trace and provide public records: The Second Appellate Authority directed the relevant authorities to trace the required files and, if not found, to register a criminal complaint under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. Despite these directions, the files were not located, and no criminal complaint was lodged. The affidavits submitted by the officials indicated various reasons for the failure to trace the files, including administrative changes and difficulty pinpointing the time of misplacement. 3. Accountability and liability of government officials: The affidavits from Mr. Suresh Kakani and Mr. S.K. Salimath attempted to absolve the officials of responsibility, citing difficulties in tracing the files and the lack of evidence of deliberate misplacement. However, the court found this approach unacceptable, emphasizing that the officials failed to comply with the State Information Commission's order and did not take appropriate action to trace the files or hold anyone accountable. 4. Implementation of the State Information Commission's order: The court noted that the State Information Commission's order was binding and required strict compliance. The officials' failure to act on the order, including not registering a criminal complaint, was seen as a serious lapse. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the directives to ensure transparency and accountability as intended by the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. Legal consequences under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005: The court highlighted that the missing file was a public record under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, and its preservation was mandatory. The failure to maintain the record attracted penalties under Section 9 of the Act, which includes imprisonment or fines. The court directed the officials to initiate criminal proceedings as per the State Information Commission's order. Conclusion: The court directed the Respondent No.3 to initiate criminal proceedings as per the Second Appellate Authority's order. The investigation was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months. The court also ordered the State to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the Petitioner. The judgment emphasized the need for transparency, accountability, and strict compliance with the Right to Information Act and the Maharashtra Public Records Act.
|
