Governor House official violates Punjab’s RTI law

ISLAMABAD: Although Punjab chief minister has already shared his official expenditure under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information (RTI) Act 2013, powerful bureaucracy at the Governor House is refusing to do the same despite a unanimous decision of the Punjab Information Commission.
Hearing a complaint against an official for non-provision of information about the detailed expenses of the Governor House, the commission has unanimously passed the order directing the officer to immediately release the information under the RTI law.
However, over a month has passed since the order of the commission but the officials of Governor Secretariat have yet to provide information to the complainant.A citizen had filed request with the Governor House Secretariat under provincial RTI law for provision of details of expenses of the Governor House in September 2014 but for six months the officials refused to provide the information. Under the Punjab RTI law, the officials are bound to provide information within 14 days of filing of the request. After failing to get the requisite information, the person filed a complaint with the Punjab Information Commission, which issued orders on February 12, 2015 whereby the designated Public Information Officer Tariq Shahzad (deputy secretary coordination Governor House Lahore) was directed to provide the requested information. However the order was not implemented and instead of Public Information officer, Secretary to Governor Farhan Aziz Khawja, a DMG officer, wrote a letter No SOA/GS(Estt)1-11/2013 to the commission. In his letter Farhan Aziz came up with three reasons for denying access to information.
First he said the show-cause notice was issued by one information commissioner out of three-member body so it suffers from jurisdictional error.Secondly, the officer argues that the first name of complainant is slightly changed in the complaint as compared to that mentioned in the order of the commission, which “rendered the entire proceedings doubtful”
Thirdly, he said, the information commissioner passed the order “without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the representative of the (Governor) secretariat”.The commission held a meeting which was chaired by Chief Information Commissioner Mazhar Hussain Minhas, and attended by Information Commissioners Mukhtar Ahmad Ali and Ahmad Raza Tahir on April 15, 2015 and questioned the validity of response by the Secretary to the Governor.
“The Secretary in this case is neither an aggrieved nor a related party, and can’t act on behalf of the designated public information officer. Without prejudice to this, however, the Commission finds it appropriate to decide questions raised in the letter by the Secretary for the guidance of future applicants and respondents,” the commission wrote in its order.
The commission rejected all the three “objections” raised by the DMG officer.In response to first objection, the commission said “The Punjab Information Commission, being a special institution established by the Act, has the inherit powers to internally regulate its functions, including distribution of work, as evident from Rule 10(a) read with Rule 10(c) of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Rules 2014. Rule 10(c) clearly states that ‘policy’ decisions will be made through consensus or by a majority vote in a meeting, so it doesn’t relate to orders on complaints, which may be passed by the whole Commission or by an individual commissioner to whom the complaint is entrusted by the Chief Information Commissioner or as per any other procedure adopted by the Commission.”
While responding to the second objection, the commission said the variation of names in the correspondence of the complainant is a minor technicality, which can’t be relied upon as a ground to deprive people/complainants of their fundamental right to information guaranteed under Article 19-A of the Constitution and the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013. “Anyone, who examines the correspondence by the complainant diligently and with a positive mind, can easily determine that it is from the same address, relates to the same questions and by the same person,” the order says adding that a public information officer (or even the Commission for that matter) is not required to first ascertain identity or motives of the requester, as he should primarily be concerned about whether the requested information, or a part thereof, is hit by section 13 of the Act.
While addressing the third objection, the commission held that the material on the record and a reading of the said order clearly show that the public information officer had the opportunity to explain and he did explain his point of view through his letter No. SOA/GS(ESTT.)1-11/2013 dated 06.02.2015. “The personal hearing was not required, as the public information officer had explained his point of view and the requested information was clearly not hit by section 13 of the Act, hence, it didn’t require any further process on the part of the Commission,” the order reads.
“In view of the above, the Information Commission endorses the earlier order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Information Commissioner, and hereby directs the public information officer to provide the requested information to the complainant immediately, failing which proceedings u/s 15 of the Act ibid shall be undertaken against him,” the commission wrote.
Secretary information Punjab Momin Agha told The News the Punjab government believes in transparency and openness. “I don’t know about this particular case but the Punjab Information Commission’s directions are generally followed by the government departments,” he said.
He directed this correspondent to contact Director Public Relations (DPR) to Governor Agha Mashhood. When contacted on Monday, the DPR said concerned Secretary to Governor Farhan Aziz is on official training but he will give a detailed version within a day. But on Tuesday he again asked to submit a written question on the issue and sought one more day for his version. However on Thursday he declined calls on his number and did not respond to messages on his phone.