9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation Act, 2005 (for short, "said Act") on 30-11-2010. After receipt of the said application immediately the petitioner on 13-12-2010 forwarded the said application/part of the said application to the concerned Talathi and Block Development Officer and instructed them to provide the information required by respondent No. 2 to enable him to provide the same to respondent No. 2 and accordingly, informed in this regard to respondent No. 2. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 2 instead of filing first appeal before the first appellate authority, chosen wrong remedy and filed appeal before respondent No. 1 by way of filing second appeal and prayed for issuance of necessary directions against the petitioner for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er who is working as Naib Tahsildar, could not have been held responsible. It is further submitted that, petitioner who is holding post of Naib Tahsildar has to seek information from Talathi and B.D.O. and the petitioner cannot supply the information in his official capacity as. Naib Tahsildar or office unless same information is received from Talathi or B.D.O. It is submitted that, respondent No. l has not considered the effect of not availing remedy of first appeal by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that, the Tahsildar in his reply before, respondent No. l in second appeal has made it clear that, no first appeal was filed by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that, the petitioner has lost opportunity to put forth his contention before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Act before imposing heavy penalty. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon sub section (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the said Act submits that, in the facts of the present case, assistance was sought from Talathi in respect of information about revenue record and in respect of panchayat from B.D.O., in that case in view of mandate of aforesaid provisions, said officers are required to be treated as State Public Information Officer. The Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the extract from the Register maintained by the office under R.T.I. Act to receive application, forward the same to appropriate officer and further to supply information, submits that application was received on 30-10-2010 from respondent No. 2 and said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her : Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer. In the facts of present case, as it is evident from the perusal of the extract from the Register maintained by the office of the petitioner that, the application was received on 30-11-2010. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the said application was forwarded to Talathi and B.D.O. on the same day, however the copy of relevant extract produced on record, in it's last column would show that, the said application was forwarded on 13-12-2010 to the Talathi of the concerned village and B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti. In this respect, proviso to Section 6 of the said Act becomes relevant. Said proviso prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r furnishing information as sought by respondent No. 2 is concerned, the second appellate authority upon considering material placed on record has observed thus : (Underlines supplied). 14. Therefore, upon careful perusal of observations/reasons recorded by respondent. No. 1, it appears that, even the petitioner could have furnished information as sought by respondent No. 2. This finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 is based upon the material placed on record. 15. The contention of the petitioner that, since the petitioner was not responsible to supply information and in absence of fastening liability on the B.D.O., and Talathi., no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner, deserves no consideration since p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
