RTI Row in Margao: Fire Department Under Scanner for Procedural Lapse
Margao, May 2026: A response issued by the Directorate of Fire & Emergency Services, South Zone Margao, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has sparked concern among legal observers and transparency advocates, with questions being raised over whether due procedure was followed by the Public Information Officer (PIO).
The case pertains to an RTI application filed by a Chandor resident seeking specific details regarding minimum road width and turning radius required for fire engine access while granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs). The application, dated March 16, 2026, was addressed to the Fire & Emergency Services Department.
In its reply dated April 2, 2026, the office of the State Public Information Officer, Rajendra Anant Haldankar, stated that the query was “not specific” and suggested that the information “may be sought from Fire Prevention Cell, Panaji.”
Alleged Deviation from RTI Procedure
However, legal experts point out that such a response may not be in compliance with **Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005**, which clearly mandates that if the requested information pertains to another public authority, the PIO is required to **transfer the application within five days** and inform the applicant accordingly.
“The law does not permit a PIO to simply advise the applicant to approach another department,” said a qualified RTI practitioner familiar with the matter. “The responsibility to tran
Options Before the Applicant
RTI experts note that the applicant now has the option to file a **First Appeal** before the designated Appellate Authority within the same department. If unsatisfied, the matter can be escalated to the **Goa State Information Commission**.
A legal commentator explained,
“You can go on appeal with the First Appellate Authority of that office. If you are not satisfied there, you can approach the Commission.”
Penalty Provisions and Accountability
Under **Section 20 of the RTI Act**, failure to comply with procedural requirements—including unjustified delays or improper handling—can attract penalties of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. However, experts caution that such penalties are imposed only after due examination by the Information Commission and typically require proof of malafide intent or persistent negligence.
Larger Concerns on Transparency
The incident has once again highlighted ongoing concerns about the implementation of RTI provisions at the ground level. Transparency advocates argue that improper handling of applications, even at a procedural level, undermines the spirit of the Act and discourages citizens from seeking information.
“The RTI Act was enacted to simplify access to information, not complicate it,” an activist remarked. “Authorities must adhere strictly to their statutory obligations.”
Awaiting Further Action**
As of now, it remains to be seen whether the applicant will pursue an appeal and whether the matter will reach the State Information Commission for further scrutiny.
Comments