When the PIO does not obey the Commission's Orders to provide the information, it is natural that the appellant report it to the Commission or make another complaint against the PIOs disobedience viz., commission of criminal act under IPC for further action stipulated in Section 20(2) of the Act. But on second complaint, the PIO provide the information and report back to the Commission that the the information requested by the petitionder had already been given. The SIC ignore the date when the PIO has provided the information or find out the reason for delaying it or no providing it when ordered . The SIC does not consider impossing penalty even in such concrete case.Following is such a typical case:
1. On 28-10-2005 (28-10-2005) Appellant had asked for copy of a particular Revenue Vigilence Report where the delinquent has already been punished on orders of government.During the enquiry the delinquent had made a statement incriminating a particular powerful vvested interest 2. On orders of SIC, the PIO issued unauthenticated copy of the ibid statement of the delinquent striking out the incriminating line, blackening that portion 3. Despite repeated orders of government the PIO continue to maintain that copy of the letter sought for already provided, supressing the allegation of unauthentication and forgery. 4 Since all efforts turned futile, and the PIO refused to budge from his same statement the Appellant made a fresh application on 29-6-2006 specifically asking the PIO for "certified copy of statement of ...dated... made before the Enquiry Officer.quotting Section 2(j)(ii) of the Act 5. On no response from PIO, on First Appeal, the Additional Chief Secretary ordered for provision of the information. 6. On inaction of PIO to the AA's orders a fresh complaint under Section 18(1) was made to the SIC on 24-8-06 7. No communication between the SIC and PIO on this complaint or date of hearing of this complaint communiocated to the appellant though in almost all cases the SIC has been too regular in harassing the appellant unnecessarily calling at Trivandrum for hearing. 8. On 19-10-2007,the PIO has furnished the certified copy of the statement as aked for though the PIO could not undo the striking out of two line but could be readable The PIO has quotted SICs reference for providing the above. 9. The covering letter of the PIO's letter clearly indicate with reason that it was not provided earlier despite 10. There is no dobt that the information is delayed by the PIO deliberately for 16 months. Now after a delay of further 5 months the SIC has issued following orders now *CP.No.492/2007/SIC (No.4972/SIC-Gen.2/2007 dated31-3-2008* ** x x x x 2. The Commission persued action on the complaint and a report was obtained from the PIO ofCommisssioner of Land Revenue. The PIO had reported that information as requested bny the petitioner had already been given. 3. Thecommission while con sidering the case found that the matter leading to this complaint had already been considered inAP No.116/2006 and orders thereto issued on 9-7-2006. The Commission is constrained to ob serve that thecommission cannot nor is expected to consider a case, on unlimited times to satisfy a complainant/appellant. Once an eppeal is considered and order issued thereto, that is final. The appellant, may, however on excepti9onal grounds approach the Commission, to review with a Review Petition. The Commission mayh consider it on merits and sispose it off s per the proedure adopted fo the disposal Review Petions by the Courts./ 4. The complaint is disposed off accodingly. x x x x [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
