‘Not traceable’ no excuse to deny RTI info, Punjab panel tells officials | Chandigarh News


‘Not traceable’ no excuse to deny RTI info, Punjab panel tells officials
The appellant had filed RTI applications on Sept 24 and Oct 3, 2023, seeking information from the RTA, Patiala. Nearly three years later, he had neither received a reply nor the requested information

Chandigarh: The Punjab State Information Commission has held that govt officials cannot cite records being “not traceable” as a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide information under the Right to Information Act.State information commissioner Pooja Gupta, hearing an appeal concerning RTI applications filed with the offices of the regional transport authority (RTA) and regional transport officer (RTO), Patiala, has directed both authorities to conduct an exhaustive search for the records and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation to the appellant.The appellant had filed RTI applications on Sept 24 and Oct 3, 2023, seeking information from the RTA, Patiala. Nearly three years later, he had neither received a reply nor the requested information.The commission had issued a show-cause notice to the RTA’s public information officer (PIO) for failing to provide the information within the statutory period. The RTA later said the RTO’s PIO was responsible for supplying the information, while the RTO maintained that whatever information was available in official records had already been provided. The appellant disputed this.At an earlier hearing, both PIOs had been directed to produce the complete relevant record. When the matter came up again, however, both said the records were “not traceable”.The commission said the records sought were official records of a public authority and their non-traceability could not, by itself, be accepted as a satisfactory explanation for denying information under the RTI Act. It said public authorities were obliged to maintain and preserve records and could not evade responsibility merely by stating that records were untraceable.The PIOs have been directed to search all concerned branches, sections, record rooms and offices under their control and identify officials responsible for custody and maintenance of the records.They have also been asked to submit detailed affidavits specifying the records sought, places searched, officials responsible for their custody, steps taken to trace them and circumstances in which they became untraceable. If the records are not found, the authorities will have to state whether they were lost, misplaced, destroyed or otherwise unavailable, and disclose whether any action or inquiry has been initiated to fix responsibility.The commission said a “bald statement” that records were “not traceable” would not amount to compliance with its directions. It directed the authorities to make every possible effort to trace the records and provide information available from connected or alternative official records, as permitted under the RTI Act.“Such kind of behaviour of a govt employee needs to be condemned, and such employees need to be taught a good lesson so that the rest of the employees have the right kind of message to wake up and perform their duties under the RTI Act for ensuring complete transparency and due accountability in the governance affairs of the public authorities (sic),” the Commission said in its order.The commission observed that the appellant had made every effort to obtain the information but had been made to “run from pillar to post” without receiving it even after notices were issued during the second appeal proceedings. It awarded him Rs 10,000 for the detriment and harassment suffered.The commission also flagged non-compliance by several public authorities with mandatory proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. It said information was often either not uploaded on official websites or not updated regularly, undermining transparency and accountability and forcing citizens to file individual RTI applications.It reiterated that every public authority must ensure complete and updated proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Act in letter and spirit.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *