First, nearly 1, 500 applications that reach the state’s commission are too few compared to other states. Plus, the commission has imposed only three penalties and awarded one compensation so far, as its directives have been restricted to issue show-cause notices to state public information officers (SPIOs).

In comparison, Tamil Nadu’s information commission has slapped nearly 250 penalties in the three years of its existence, even as it receives 400 applications everyday. The Punjab Information Commission has imposed 46 penalties in 5687 applications, it has received till date.

Penalty case 1

An applicant Ratikanta Pal had sought some information from the Mugkalyan Benapur panchayat office. When he did not get any reply, he approached the commission, which asked secretary of the gram panchyat to furnish an action report within 15 days.

Two months later, Pal informed the commission that he had not yet received any information. The commission then slapped a show-cause notice on the SPIO. Yet, the secretary did not send any reply to the commission nor furnished any information to the applicant. The SPIO also did not turn up at the two hearings held by the commission.

Subsequently, the commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 -the maximum penalty amount- on the secretary and the state public information officer of the gram panchayat.

Penalty case 2

Raghunath Chakraborty, a resident of Jangipara in Hooghly, had requested the Chief Medical Officer for certain information. When he did not furnish it, the case was referred to the information commission. When the commission issued a show-cause notice to the CMO, he furnished false information.

When the applicant proved that the information was wrong, the commission imposed a penalty of Rs 15,500 on the CMO and the state assistant public information officer of Hooghly.

Penalty case 3

An applicant Indranil Ballav of South 24 Parganas submitted an RTI application seeking some information, which was ultimately furnished by the district registrar. Ballav complained to the commission that the information was incomplete and contradictory. The commission observed that not only there was considerable delay in providing the information, it was also contradictory. The commission then imposed a penalty of Rs 1750 on the district registrar of South 24 Parganas in an order dated March 25, 2008.

Compensation case

Saroj Kumar Khettry requested the SPIO of the cooperation department to furnish certain documents. When he did not get any response, he approached the commission, which ordered the SPIO to submit the information. The SPIO, however, provided the wrong documents. When issued a show-cause notice in this regard, the SPIO admitted to supplying the erroneous information due to an inadvertent error by department clerks.

The commission ordered the cooperation department to compensate the applicant with an amount of Rs 1000 for the ‘harassment’ caused to him.

Leniency galore

There are, however, several cases, when the commission did not take any action. The case of Swati Banerjee, for instance. Banerjee, a part time lecturer with the Lady Brabourne College, was shown the door after being with the institute for 20 years. She requested the higher education department to provide the government orders by which the post of lecturer was created and subsequently abolished. But the department admitted that it could not find the requisite documents.

The commission observed, “When the government has issued orders for the creation of some posts, there should also be some orders for abolishing the posts.” The commission said, “Neither any order of abolishing the posts nor any order terminating the service of Banerjee was actually issued.”

Notably, while the commission pointed at the grave administrative failure in the case, it did not take any stern action. All the commission did was to ask the public authorities to gear up its machinery.