Thursday, December 12, 2024
spot_img

Health dept penalised for RTI reply delay

Date:

Share post:

spot_img
spot_img

From Our Correspondent

TURA, Oct 7: In a significant ruling that could benefit future information seekers under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Meghalaya State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 3,000 on the state’s Health & Family Welfare Department for delaying its response to queries filed by social activist Nilbath Marak.
Nilbath submitted an RTI application on May 24, 2024, to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Director of Health and Family Welfare (DHFW) in Shillong. As per RTI rules, the department was required to provide the requested information within 30 days or notify the applicant if additional time was needed. However, neither the information nor any communication was provided within the stipulated period.
Following this lapse, Nilbath escalated the matter to the State Information Commission, which issued a show-cause notice to the DHFW. The department replied that the RTI was forwarded to the District Medical & Health Officer (DMHO) of East Garo Hills (EGH) district, as the request pertained to that region. However, this reply was only sent on August 7, 2024, well beyond the 30-day deadline.
In its order issued on September 19, the Commission noted that the DHFW failed to inform Marak about forwarding the request and observed that the department’s reply was delayed, only being sent on July 23, 2024. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was sent to the PIO of the DMHO office in EGH on August 16, with the department responding to the Commission on August 22.
The Commission found that no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given. “The PIO (DMHO) was given an opportunity to explain, but no reasons were provided for the delayed reply. Therefore, a penalty of Rs 3,000 has been imposed on the PIO, to be paid via Treasury Challan within 15 days,” stated the order.
Further RTI complications
In a separate RTI case involving the same applicant, Nilbath Marak alleged that he was summoned to a meeting regarding his complaint without being informed of the meeting beforehand. This case pertains to a complaint Nilbath filed with the Meghalaya Information Commission against the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Department of East Garo Hills for failing to provide information under RTI.
According to the Commission’s order, a hearing was scheduled for September 5, involving the PHE department, the contractor, and the RTI applicant. However, Nilbath claims that he received notification of the hearing on September 19—14 days after the event. “I received the letter on the same day it was sent by speed post, but by then, the hearing had already taken place. How was I supposed to attend a hearing in the past? I have all the records, including the envelope, which clearly shows the date it was sent and received,” Nilbath stated.
The original RTI request sought details about contractors and tender notices for a project overseen by the PHE in East Garo Hills. When the PHE refused to disclose this information, Nilbath filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (DC – EGH), but received no response.
In its order, the Commission directed the appellate authority to provide the tender notice to the PIO within 15 days, so it could be shared with the complainant. The PHE had argued that disclosing the work order details was not possible as it was refused by the third party, BAC Infratech, which is responsible for the project.
During the hearing, BAC Infratech objected to the disclosure of technical details of the project (Detailed Project Report) on the grounds that it would reveal company secrets. However, they did not object to the financial aspects being shared. BAC also opposed the release of their bank account information but agreed to disclose other parts of the work order.
The Commission ruled in favor of BAC’s objections, agreeing not to disclose sensitive information. It instructed the PIO to provide the complainant with all relevant details that did not violate the company’s privacy, allowing 15 days for compliance.

spot_img
spot_img

Related articles

RDA breaks up for polls

By Our Reporter SHILLONG, Dec 11: While the bugle for district council polls has hardly been sounded, political realignment...

Lack of interest in TMC camp; party likely to skip ADC polls

By Our Reporter SHILLONG, Dec 11: The Opposition Trinamool Congress (TMC) appears unlikely to contest the upcoming Autonomous District...

Sanbor flags concern over beef ban impact on state’s cattle trade

In a letter to Assam CM, he said Meghalaya relies heavily on road connectivity through Assam for...

Rakkam sees border hotel biz in Assam’s beef restriction

By Our Reporter SHILLONG, Dec 11: National People’s Party (NPP) leader and Education Minister Rakkam A Sangma has advised...