TN Info Commission impose Rs 5k fine on Chennai District Collectorate PIO for not providing info under RTI

CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Chennai District Collectorate for not providing information sought by a differently abled woman under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

State Information Commissioner P Thamarai Kannan, in an order, directed the appellate authority, Chennai District Revenue Officer to ensure that the Social Security Scheme special Tahsildar provides the information sought by the applicant Leelavati within 15 days.

He also instructed the appellate authority of the District Collectorate to identify the PIO responsible for not providing information and issue a show cause notice asking why a penalty of Rs 25000 should not be imposed and initiate disciplinary action on him/her.

The SIC ordered the payment of Rs 5000 to the applicant from the concerned PIO office within 15 days for not providing the info on time. He asked the special Tahsildar to appear in person and submit an action taken report on February 19.

The petitioner, Leelavati, had filed an application under the RTI on March 18, 2022, seeking details on nine points, including the copy of the application filed for the Differently Able Pension Scheme, the date on which the revenue inspector carried out the field inspection and a copy of RI enquiry report.

Leelavati, a differently abled, applied for the Differently Able Pension Scheme in February 2022 but it was rejected by the Social Security Scheme Tahsildar.

While rejecting the application, the Tahsildar stated that the applicant applied for the Indira Gandhi Disability Pension Scheme, a local enquiry conducted by the RI Mahalakshmi P and the address is not clear.

Leelavati's husband told this newspaper that they filed the RTI application as the reason cited for the rejection of the DAPS was contradictory.

"Special Tahsildar has citied the field inspection by the revenue inspector P Mahalakshmi and not clear address for the rejection of the application. We sought a copy of the RI report and application copy," he said.

He said that even though they were given a demand draft of Rs 5,000 after the State Information Commission order, the information provided was incomplete.

"In the reply, it was stated that RI did not inspect. It is contradictory," he said, noting that the copy of the DAPS application filed by his wife was also not provided.

"No further action was taken on the complaint filed with the Differently Abled Commissioner and the Chennai District Collector against the rejection of the application without field verification and citing contradictory reasons," he said.