A.P. INFORMATION COMMISSION

A.P. INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Under Right to Information Act, 2005)
D.No. 5-4-399, Samachara Hakku Bhavan (Old ACB Building),
‘4” Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building,
Moazzam Jahi Market, Hyderabad-500001,
Phone: 040-24740638, 24740109 (f)
Complaint No. 21651/SIC-CMR/2014, Date:-12-09-2014
Name of the Complainant
Name of the Public Authority
: Sri. E.Sivaramanjaneyulu,
:
D.No.6-665,
Narpala – 515425,
Anantapur District.
Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act,
2005)/
O/o the Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Anantapur.515001
ORDER
1.
Sri. E.Sivaramanjaneyulu, filed a complaint dated 14-8-2014 u/s 18(1) of
Right to Information Act, 2005, which was received by this Commission on 18-8-2014,
against the Public Information Officer for non-furnishing of information.
2.
According to the complainant he filed an application dated 10-9-2012 before the
Public Information Officer O/o the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anantapur.
3.
The Complainant has sought for the information from the PIO u/s 6(1) as follows:
4.
The PIO did not furnish the information to the complainant.
5.
Having not received the information from the PIO the complainant filed a
complaint before the Information Commission under section 18(1) of RTI Act. as the
Public Information Officer have failed to furnish the information as sought by him,
requesting the Commission to arrange to supply the information as sought by him and
impose the penalty under sec. 20 of RTI Act.
6.
After examining the material papers available on record, the complaint was taken
on file and notices were sent to the parties concerned directing them to appear before this
Commission for hearing on 11-09-2014.
7.
On the date of hearing i.e., on 11-09-2014, Sri
D.Naga
Raja,
SDPO,
Anantapuram & the PIO is present. The complainant is present.
8.
On hearing of the case on 11-09-2014, the Commission made the following
observations and passed the orders as follows:In the complaint submitted by the complainant on 18.8.2014, he has stated that
earlier he has submitted an application u/s 6(1) of the Act on 10.9.2012, as indicated
supra at para (3).
The complainant has stated that earlier the Commission has heard the above case
on 08.10.2013 and passed orders in Appeal Case No.6489/SIC-CMR/2013,
dt.09.10.2013. The said case has been examined and observed that the Commission has
passed orders in the case as follows:
“On the date of hearing i.e., on 08-10-2013, the PIO is requested for exemption
from the personal appearance. The 1st Appellate Authority is absent. The appellant is
present.
On hearing of the case on 08-10-2013, the Commission made the following
observations and passed the orders as follows:In the 2nd appeal submitted by the appellant on 13-03-2013, he has stated that he
has submitted an application u/s 6(1) of the Act on 10-09-2012, seeking information on
(2) items, pertaining to Permission taken from the Super indent of Police / DCP for
destruction of General Diary from 10-11-2003 to 27-11-2003 of Narpal Police Station.
action report on for Appeal case No. 7863/SIC-CMR/2010, as indicated supra at Para
(3). In the 2nd appeal made it is stated that the information sought has not been provided.
Since the application was made by the appellant (1) year and (1) months back to
give early relief to the appellant the Commission has examined the reply of the PIO dated
13-10-2012 and it does not agree to the reply that the superior Officers proceedings
basing on which the G.Ds were destroyed can not be supplied. This shall be supplied in
(7) days.
As regards item (2) it shall be supplied after submitting report to the
Commissioner.
The Commission further directed to issue show cause notice to the PIO/ Deemed
PIO (as on 10-09-2012), u/s 20(1) of the Act. The present PIO shall produce copy of
reply given to the appellant, to the Commission at the time of show cause notice
hearing.”
A complaint in the matter filed by the complainant was heard on 30.6.2014 and
the Commission has passed orders in Case No.14460/SIC-CMR/2014, dt.30.6.2014 as
follows:
“In the complaint made to the Commission now, the complainant has stated that
the information ordered to be supplied by the Commission is not supplied.
Today for the hearing the then PIO has attended. Surprisingly the present PIO
was absent. The then PIO has stated that he was transferred on 27.11.2013 and till such
time whether the Commission orders in Case No.6489/SIC-CMR/2013, dt.09.10.2013
were received or not in the Public Authority is not known. The appellant has stated that
sofar he has not received the information.
The Commission directs the present PIO to supply the information ordered,
duly certified within (15) days, free of cost, by RPAD and under intimation to the
Commission.
The Commission directs to issue show cause notice separately to the then PIO /
Deemed PIO (as on the date of receipt of Commission orders dated 09.10.2013) who has
failed to supply the information to the applicant / appellant within the stipulated time,
under sec.20(1) of the Act. The Commission also directed to give a notice to the present
PIO (as on 30.06.2014) for disobeying the summons of the Commission and failure to
attend the hearing on 30.06.2014. The present PIO shall produce copy of reply given to
the appellant along with the dispatch register in original, to the Commission at the time
of show cause notice hearing”
In the complaint made to the Commission now, the complainant has stated that
the information ordered to be provided by the Commission is not provided.
The Respondent PIO has filed an affidavit at the time of hearing vide
C.No.07/RTI-II/SDPO-A/12, d.t11.9.2014, stating that in pursuance of the orders of the
Commission, his predecessor Sri M.Dayananda Reddy, who was the then PIO had visited
the Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu on 06.10.2012 and verified all the
records and has submitted his report. He has stated that he had assumed charge as
SDPO, Anantapuramu on 28.11.2013 and after receipt of the endorsement of the
Commission he had verified all the records available in the office and learnt that one
Sainath Prasad, Head Constable was working in the Outpost Police Station, GGH,
Anantapuramu during the relevant period and at present he has retired form service. He
had secured his presence and examined him in detail and he stated that from 2003 to
31.08.2009 he had worked as Head Constable at Outpost P.S. On refreshing his memory
he has stated that on 12.11.2003 at about 10.30 PM one E.Balaji of Narpala Village came
to GGH, Anantapuramu and has taken treatment as out-patient and one Ashok Kumar
who is no more at present was the duty doctor and he might have rendered treatment.
He did not record the statement of Balaji, as the latter had received treatment as an
out-patient and immediately went away.
The then PIO Sri M.Dayanand Reddy contacted the Superintendent, GGH,
Anantapuramu and requested him to furnish the case sheet pertaining to one Balaji
bearing No.8452 dt.12.11.2003. The Superintendent, GGH, Anantapuramu has given a
reply in Rc.No.MRD/6117/2012, dt.12.10.2012 stating that during the relevant period
one Ashok Kumar was the duty doctor and the said Ashok Kumar is no more. He has
further stated that the concerned records are not available in the hospital and further
he confirmed that the patient was treated as out patient and hence no case sheet would
be maintained and further now wound certificate was issued by the concerned duty
doctor.
Further the then PIO has requested the Suerintendent, GGH, Anantapuramu to
make thorough search with regard to the said Balaji and returned to the office.
On perusal of the material available in the Narpala P.S. it came to know that
there is civil dispute between the family of the applicant herein and the family of
Munilakshmamma of Narpala Village and Mandal with regard to passage between their
houses and the said Munilakshmamma has filed a civil suit on the fiel Civil Jr. Judge,
Anantapuramu and obtained injunction orders. On 29-7-2002 the said injunction orders
were vacated by the court and hence the said Munilakshmamma has preferred an
appeal before the District Court and High Court and the said civil suit was pending and
at that time the said Munilakshmamma has obtained permission from Grampanchayat
Authorities to construct a building. While constructions were in progress on 12.11.2003
the applicant herein has tried to take photographs of the said building and then the said
Munilakshmamma and her family members interfered and some altercation took place
between the two parties and one Jayaramulu S/o Munilakshmamma sustained bleeding
injuries and basing on his complaint the then SHO, Narpala PS registered case as in
Cr.No.84/2003 u/s 324 r/w IPC and tookup investigation.
During the course of investigation the then SHO, Narpala PS has arrested the
applicant herein and his two brothers and sent them to judicial custody and filed charge
sheet which was taken on file by the Hon’ble AJFCM, Anantapuramu in CC.No.300/2006
on the file of Spl. JFCM, Prohibition Excise Court, Anantapuramu.
On the same day the brother of the applicant by name Balaji went to GGH,
Anantapuramu and has taken treatment as out patient in O.P.No.8452 and the accident
register found in the Hon’ble Court discloses that the said Balaji was directed to appear
in the hospital as an outpatient on the next day and further the said Balaji has filed a
complaint before the Hon’ble Court u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the Hon’ble Court was pleased
to take the case on file in C.C.No.726/2006 and the applicant herein was examined as a
PW2 before the Hon’ble Court.
In his examination the applicant has categorically stated that police referred his
brother Balaji to the hospital and further stated that he accompanied his brother to the
police station and the police referred to the GGH, Anantapuramu. His brother Balaji
stated that he went to Narpala PS and submitted a report and the police referred him to
GGH, Anantapuramu but none accompanied with him to the Hospital.
Further, doctor Siva Kumar who was the duty medical officer examined as PW3
and he categorically stated that no information is available in the hospital whether Balaji
was accompanied by anyone. He further stated that the O.P.No.2867 and date was not
mentioned. But the chit produced by the said Balaji is shown as OP No.8452 and basing
on the records he was advised to concerned doctor i.e. on 13.10.2003. After the
elaborate discussion the Hon’ble Court was pleased to acquit the case as there was no
corroboration to the allegations made by the said Balaji in his complaint.
He has stated that the incident has occurred on 12.10.2003 and since the year
2006 the applicant made several applications under RTI Act. As per the A.P. Police
Manual the life of the General Diary is one year only and hence he was unable to verify
the G.D. pertaining to the year 2003. Further due the constructions made in the GGH,
Anantapuramu the outpost police station and the record room were shifted to several
places and due to shifting , some of the records are missing and also due to long lapse of
time no records are available in the GGH, Anantapuramu to verify the records pertaining
to the accident register maintained during the year 2003 to arrive to a conclusion.
Further, the applicant has not come forward to produce any material in support
of his case and further as there is no material available, he cannot decide the issue to fix
the responsibility against anybody.
However the PIOs above affidavit is silent on the orders if any received from the
Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu on the permission given for destruction of
General Diary from 10.11.2003 to 27.11.2003 of Narpala Police Station.
The PIO is directed to give a specific reply on the above. If the orders of District
Police Office are not available, the item may be transferred to the Superintendent of
Police, Anantapuramu u/s 6(3)(ii) of the Act, for supply of the same, if available with the
District Police Office.
C. Madhukar Raj,
State Information Commissioner.
Authenticated by:
(V. SankaraNarayana)
Asst. Registrar
Copy to: - The SO / SF / OC
Copy to:(1) 6489/SIC-CMR/2013
(2) 14460/SIC-CMR/2014

Download Report