An apt response to a mischievous reply

THE HINDU 

Can a dead man give consent to a petitioner seeking information under the Right to Information Act? This is what the Public Information Officer (PIO) in Kulathur Taluk in Pudukottai district has asked a petitioner to do.

The case pertains to a plea filed by Additional Superintendent of Police (Retired) S. Arulanandam, who sought to know how the patta of punja lands owned by his uncle late Chinnappan Paul in Keeranur village in the Kulathur Taluk was transferred to some other name.

The petitioner sought copies of the proceedings issued by the taluk office to facilitate the name transfer in the patta.

The PIO refused to share the details citing a provision under the RTI Act which exempts sharing of “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship with public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.” To add insult to injury, the PIO asked the retired police officer to “get the consent of ‘Late’ Chinnappan Paul and submit the application”.

Shocked over the reply, Mr. Arulanandam lodged a complaint with the State Information Commission demanding action against the PIO for the “mischievous and misleading” reply.

“The information I sought relates to a fraudulent name transfer in patta. It is in public interest that I am seeking to expose this fraud. The question of third party interest or invasion of privacy does not arise,” he said.

The petitioner has also appealed to the First Appellate Authority stating that he was not able to trace Late Chinnappan Paul to get his consent.

“I have appealed that under the RTI Act it is the responsibility of the PIO to get the consent of the third party if needed. Hence, he may please approach Late Chinnappan Paul for the purpose.”













Petitioner reminded Information Officer of his duty when the latter asked him to get consent of a dead man