Panvel police register FIR against public information officer for denying information; experts welcome unique move by info seeker, an advocate
One of his queries was about construction on land belonging to SCs/STs or forest department within the limits of Kon gram panchayat. Representation pic
An advocate from Panvel has filed a police case against a public information officer (PIO) of a gram panchayat for not providing info under the Right to Information Act, in a first-of-its-kind initiative in the state. The PIO had also failed to adhere to the appellate authority’s directive. RTI experts said citizens must use the law to get FIRs registered for such non-compliance. Amit Katarnaware, 37, said he turned to the Indian Penal Code instead of approaching the Information Commissioner since the latter has a huge backlog of cases.
ADVERTISEMENT
The advocate, who filed the RTI application with the gram panchayat at Kon in Panvel Taluka on January 14, said 15 per cent of the revenue generated by gram panchayats must be used for the welfare of SCs and STs and the poor. He sought the details, including income and expenditure, for this category. His second question was about the utilisation of funds received from the finance commission (as announced in the 10th to 15th finance commission) at Kon. He also filed two more related queries.
“I was supposed to get a reply from the PIO of Kon gram panchayat within a month but when no reply was received, I filed my first appeal before the appellate officer at Panchayat Samiti on April 11, and a hearing was fixed for May 9. Ramesh Tarekar, the PIO, was also asked to be present. However, Tarekar did not attend the hearing nor did he send any documents for the hearing. The appellate officer conducted an ex parte hearing of mine and directed Tarekar to provide all the information sought by me under RTI within seven days,” said Katarnaware.
Amit Katarnaware, the RTI applicant
When the PIO didn’t respond even a week after the order of appellate authority, he wrote to the block development officer (BDO) on May 21, seeking action against the Tarekar. “I even had a telecon with the BDO a fortnight later, but the BDO was elusive in his reply and I had no recourse left other than registering the FIR,” he said.
Explaining his rationale for taking the IPC route, Katarnaware said, “The Information Commissioner’s power is limited, it cannot direct for criminal proceedings against the PIO and appellate authorities, nor he can investigate any criminal act of PIO/appellate authority [only police has the power to investigate criminal act by any public servant] and the least he can do is impose a fine of 25,000 and/or call for a departmental inquiry. Moreover, cases before the Information Commissioner have piled up during COVID and my complaint would have been delayed by a few years before it could be heard. And it is this very situation that the public information officers are either not replying to RTI queries or do not appear for hearing before the appellate authority.”
The FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a way has acknowledged that the denial of information under RTI is a criminal offence. Moreover, the accused can land behind bars if the police find that the information was deliberately not shared or documents were forged or destroyed. “Prima facie, it seems that the gram panchayat officials are hiding some facts or the probability of misuse of funds allocated for the welfare of SCs/STs and the poor cannot be ruled out. I will wait for the police to submit its report in the next few days and accordingly will decide my future course of legal remedy,” said Katarnaware.
Expert speak
Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist and former Central Information Commissioner, said, “One of the Maharashtra Information Commissioners had taken a bizarre position saying he would not accept appeals though the Public Information Officer (PIO) had not complied with the First Appellate Authority (FAA’s) order to give the information. I think this FIR is a very good device citizens can use. Sections 166,175,176 and 217 of Indian Penal Code appear to fit such cases and could be used even if their non-compliance with the Commission’s orders. This FIR must be highlighted and citizens should insist on the FIR being filed. My compliments to the RTI applicant Advocate Amit Katarnaware.”
Gandhi said it will at least take three to four years to clear the backlog of cases. “Incidentally, there are high court orders, which state that Information Commissioners should take a decision on cases within 45 days, but unfortunately the ground reality speaks for itself. The State Information Commission has not even drawn a roadmap of how this would be achieved.”
FIR against PIO
The FIR by Katarnaware was registered on June 6 under IPC sections 166 (public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person), 175 (omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant bound to produce it), 176 (omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it), 188 (disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) and 217 (public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture).
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
