http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Goa/Top_law_college_official_penalized_by_SIC/rssarticleshow/3491960.cms
Top law college official penalized by SIC 17 Sep 2008, 0431 hrs IST,TNN PANAJI: When Kashinath Shetye sought information under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 from V M Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar, he was asked by the vice-principal to prove that he was a 'genuine citizen of India'. Shetye had sought information on the full-time and part-time faculty of the college and the marks allotted to second and third year students of the institute. However, a delay of 58 days on behalf of the college in providing him the information attracted a penalty from the State Information Commission (SIC). The vice-principal, M R K Prasad, who is also the public information officer (PIO) of the college, has been directed to pay a penalty of Rs 2,000 for the 58-day delay. The penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act for non-compliance with the orders of the Commission. Kashinath Shetye had sought information from the vice-principal or the senior-most lecturer of V M Salgaocar College of Law by way of two separate applications on April 8, 2008. The college authorities, however, asked the complainant to produce proof of his residence and photo identity to ensure that he was a 'genuine citizen of India'. It is against this that Shetye approached the Commission. At the hearing, the college authorities 'did not contest the complainant and agreed to provide the information' within two weeks against the prescribed fees. The concerned college authorities were also directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission on July 2, 2008 at 11 am. However, Shetye was still not provided the information in totality. The led the Commission to pass an order on July 16, 2008 directing the college vice-principal to provide Shetye with the remaining information within one week. The PIO was also asked to show cause as to why the penalty of Rs 250 per day for the delay should not be imposed on him as per provisions of Section 20 of the Act. However, even at the next scheduled hearing, Shetye still awaited the information sought by him. Prasad was given another opportunity. Subsequently, at the next hearing, Prasad said that the 'opponent did not receive any direction to submit the compliance report to the Commission'. The Commission stated thus: "The opponent has made a false statement. Ample opportunity was given to the opponent to file his reply, besides providing him the opportunity of being heard". Further the Commission observed that, "Be it as it may, the opponent, till the date of the last hearing dated August 27, 2008 did not provide the complete information as required by the complainant". The order of the Commission also states that, "As the opponent asked the complainant to prove that he was a genuine citizen of India, the opponent should note that any person can seek information under Section 6 of the RTI Act and that he/she is not required to furnish any details other than particulars of the information required and details of his or her contact". The Commission has stated that, "In the event that the opponent fails to pay the penalty within the time limit specified in this order, we direct the principal of the college to deduct the penalty of Rs 2,000 from the salary of the opponent for the month of October 2008."
