| Font Size - |
Habibullah has directed that the CPIO will maintain the RTI record as mandated under Section 4 (1) (b).
In January 2008, Goswami had filed a complaint with the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act that even after two and a half years of the Act coming into force, the UT Administrator had not published the necessary details mandated under it and that he had also not appointed any Public Information Officer.
Though the UT Administration contested that there was no office of the Administrator and that no record was generated in the office of the UT Administrator, the CIC decided in favour of appointing a CPIO.
The UT Joint Secretary (Home) had, while contesting the case before the CIC, argued that the UT had not given even a peon to the Administrator.
Said Habibullah, “In this case, there can be little doubt that the Administrator is an authority established under Article 239 of the Constitution, occupied by an official with an assignment, and therefore an office. It matters little whether that authority exercises any duty or not. Even if he does not head a particular body or sits in a room or building where people work at the desk, he still occupies a formal position of responsibility. Under the circumstances, there can be little doubt that the Administrator is a public authority and, under Section 5(1) was required within 100 days of the enactment of this Act to designate a Public Information Officer.”
| Bookmark this Page |
|
Rating| Most Read Articles |
 |
