CHENNAI: The State Information Commission recently came down heavily on a few zonal officials of the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) for their laxity in responding to Right To Information (RTI) queries.
The RTI queries pertains to basic information on action taken by the civic body on complaints, requesting documents on building violations and following up on petitions.
Adjudicating the complaints, Chief Information Commissioner Shakeel Akhter questioned the GCC for not responding to RTI queries within the stipulated one-month period and even pulled up the first appellate authority. Showcause notices have been issued to the public information officers (PIO) and the appellate authority seeking an explanation on why they shouldn’t be penalised under Section 20 of the Act.
The cases pertain to RTI applications filed by residents V Kirubanandan and R Sathik Basha with zone 5 and zone 9 of GCC in 2023. In one case, Kirubanandan sought information on building plan permission and other relevant records of a particular project; in another, he had asked for action taken on his complaint against building violations. Sathik Basha had asked for information on a petition and follow-up letters he had filed in April, May, and June 2023 against a new building being constructed in Mandaveli.
According to the orders passed by Akhter last week, the GCC PIOs had responded to RTIs filed in 2023 only a year later. The Act mandates that responses should be given in one month. Even the first appeals filed by the applicants did not elicit a proper response from the officials, though a time frame of 45 days is mandated under the Act.
Akhter’s orders also pointed out that the GCC officials responsible for the delay had moved on to other posts. In detailed orders, he ordered that the current PIO should collect explanations and explain to the commission in person why action shouldn’t be taken against the officials under the RTI Act.
Incidentally, the delayed responses by GCC showed that the building regarding which Basha had sought information had violations against which the local official had initiated action, resulting in its demolition.