Warrant against Haryana official for not replying to RTI query
03/12/2019, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,GURUGRAM
Taking a serious view of the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurugram, not replying to an application under the Right To Information (RTI) Act on unauthorised colonies, the State Information Commission (SIC) has issued bailable warrants against the official.
The panel also ordered the Director General of Department of Town and Country Planning to ensure that state public information officers (SPIO) attend the commission’s hearings so that appellants are not harassed.
The order came in connection with a RTI application filed by Ramesh Yadav more than a year ago seeking information on the No-Objection Certificates issued by the official concerned for registration of land and the action taken against mushrooming of illegal colonies.
In its November 15 order, the SIC said it had on August 2 directed the SPIO-cum-DTP (Enforcement) Ved Prakash Sehrawat, to facilitate inspection of relevant records on August 13 at 11.15 a.m. at his office, but the appellant, Mr. Yadav, in his email on November 14 informed that he was not provided any information.
In its four-page order, the SIC noted that Mr. Sehrawat “neither furnished any information to the appellant nor replied to the showcause notice”. “This shows the lacklustre attitude of SPIO,” it read. The SIC further noted that the SPIO did not attend commission hearings, “which shows he has no regards for effective implementation of the RTI Act”.
The commission has directed Mr. Sehrawat to furnish a reply to the RTI application within two weeks and be present at the next hearing on March 11, 2020, with the relevant record.
Mr. Yadav alleged that Mr. Sehrawat, had issued around 250 NOCs, mostly in violation of law, to facilitate unauthorised colonies.
He said that around 700 unauthorised colonies had come up in Gurugram, but no action was taken.
Mr. Sehrawat, however, denied all allegations saying that they were motivated by vested interests. He claimed that he had duly replied to the commission’s showcause notice and furnished the information to the appellant and it appeared to be a case of miscommunication.
03/12/2019, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,GURUGRAM
Taking a serious view of the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurugram, not replying to an application under the Right To Information (RTI) Act on unauthorised colonies, the State Information Commission (SIC) has issued bailable warrants against the official.
The panel also ordered the Director General of Department of Town and Country Planning to ensure that state public information officers (SPIO) attend the commission’s hearings so that appellants are not harassed.
The order came in connection with a RTI application filed by Ramesh Yadav more than a year ago seeking information on the No-Objection Certificates issued by the official concerned for registration of land and the action taken against mushrooming of illegal colonies.
In its November 15 order, the SIC said it had on August 2 directed the SPIO-cum-DTP (Enforcement) Ved Prakash Sehrawat, to facilitate inspection of relevant records on August 13 at 11.15 a.m. at his office, but the appellant, Mr. Yadav, in his email on November 14 informed that he was not provided any information.
In its four-page order, the SIC noted that Mr. Sehrawat “neither furnished any information to the appellant nor replied to the showcause notice”. “This shows the lacklustre attitude of SPIO,” it read. The SIC further noted that the SPIO did not attend commission hearings, “which shows he has no regards for effective implementation of the RTI Act”.
The commission has directed Mr. Sehrawat to furnish a reply to the RTI application within two weeks and be present at the next hearing on March 11, 2020, with the relevant record.
Mr. Yadav alleged that Mr. Sehrawat, had issued around 250 NOCs, mostly in violation of law, to facilitate unauthorised colonies.
He said that around 700 unauthorised colonies had come up in Gurugram, but no action was taken.
Mr. Sehrawat, however, denied all allegations saying that they were motivated by vested interests. He claimed that he had duly replied to the commission’s showcause notice and furnished the information to the appellant and it appeared to be a case of miscommunication.
No comments:
Post a Comment