Irked over the inordinate delay in providing information requested by a petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has called for the explanation from Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco) Ltd as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the erring officials.
The case pertains to a petition filed by N. Sundar of Tambaram who lost vision in one eye after an accident caused by a crane stationed along the main road to install street lights in Mullai Nagar, Tambaram, on September 19, 2016. He sought to know the details of the work, vehicle registration and other particulars relating to the incident.
After no response as desired was forthcoming from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority on his petition dated May 5, 2022, he moved the TNIC for relief. Despite specific orders to provide the details called for by the petitioner, the Public Information Officer did not comply with the direction. He moved the TNIC again accusing the officials of non-compliance to the Commission’s order dated December 19, 2022.
No information available
Mr. Sundar said that the Public Information Officer did not appear in three hearings conducted by the TNIC on his complaint of non-compliance and the officials who represented on his behalf did not provide any information relating to the street light work and vehicle involved in the accident. In a hearing held on April 8, 2024, the Public Information Office, who was present, claimed that the details of the street lights installation work, project cost and vehicle registration were not available. Also, no record was available to check whether the work was carried out by a contractor or executed by Tangedo directly.
Noting the petitioner could not file a case in the court seeking compensation since basic information on the accident was not available. State Information Commissioner R. Priyakumar directed the Superintending Engineer, Tangedco, to conduct an inquiry and call for an explanation from the erring officials as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them under the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act.
He also called for an explanation why ₹3 lakh should not be awarded as compensation to the petitioner taking into account the mental agony that he had go through and also the expenses incurred due to multiple visits to the TNIC office. The official was told to submit a detailed report in person on May 7, 2024.
