An RTI reply has revealed that the state vigilance department has no idea how many cases it received and disposed of.

Social activist Umadhar Singh, a former CPI(ML) MLA, had asked a straight question that how many cases had been filed during the tenure of the present principal secretary of the vigilance department.

He also wanted to know for how long the cases are pending and how many of these have been disposed of.

Birendra Singh, the joint secretary (law)-cum-public information officer (PIO) submitted the department’s response before the state information commissioner Farzand Ahmed on Thursday, saying such information were not preserved by the department.

Taking a cue from the earlier order of the then chief information commissioner, A.K. Choudhary, Ahmed rejected the reply as unacceptable and ordered the principal secretary through PIO Singh to furnish information within 15 days to the petitioner or face action.

In an earlier order on July 2, Choudhary had maintained if the petitioner demanded information properly he would get it as the same comes under the definition of information. He had even suggested what to ask and how to ask.

Umadhar Singh followed the official process in his petition.

On such “careless” reply from the vigilance department principal secretary’s office, he said in a packed courtroom that this happened only because the vigilance department, earlier known as anti- corruption department, was now itself “facing rampant corruption”.

“How could the government ensure good governance and eradicate corruption when the department responsible for cleansing the system was paralysed because of wide-spread corruption within it?” he asked.

State information commissioner Ahmed reminded the principal secretary that deliberate denial of information under the RTI Act would invite penalty as well as administrative action under Section 20 of the act.

It did not distinguish between high and low among public authorities, Ahmed said in his order and asked him to set up a team under Section 18 (3) to search for the informa- tion from its various wings and furnish the same to the information-seeker before the next date in a correct format.

“If it is not done it would prove the petitioner’s charge that there was total chaos in the department and the information was being concealed deliberately,” he added.