Useless
and Third-grade order of Odisha Information Commission
Most
inefficient, lazy and lethargic people have been appointed in the post of
Odisha Information Commission by State Government to destroy RTI Act – How
·The Information Commission has not mentioned subject matter
of information in its decision.
·Without ensuring
information, Sri L.N.Patnaik, Information Commissioner on 4.8.17. again sent back first appeal to First Appellate
Authority to hear the
appeal petition and dispose it on
merit . It is already 3 years over since filling of RTI Application by
applicant on 12.11.14.
·The Information Commissioner
disposed the case on 4.8.17 but sent
the copy of decision on 24.8.18 after one
year of his decision. As the Commission made unprecedented delay in sending the
copy of order, the First Appellate Authority, BDO, Bonth block did not hear the
case nor ensured the information.
·Despite approaching
the Commission to get justice, the applicant could not get information within
four years.
Do you love or hate this L.N.Patnaik, Information Commissioner, a
Yes man of Third Floor of Odisha Secretariat.
Below is the
detailed presentation of the case
Dear friends
As per section 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, the Information Commission of the State and Centre
is empowered to hear
and dispose appeals and
complaints, ensure information to
the appellant and complainant and impose penalty on erring
PIO for non-supply of information.
The decision of the Commission is final and binding. The efficiency, expertise, understanding
about land and legal acumen of the Information Commissioners is highly essential
to deliver justice to the aggrieved citizens. But here in Odisha, the
State Government have appointed such a people
in the post of Information Commission
who are not only inefficient,
useless but lack expertise to hear the
case.
I cite herewith a case( Second Appeal Case No. 1494/2015) of
L.N.Patnaik , State Information
Commissioner , a known lethargic
Commissioner in history of India . When , I read the
content of the decision, I felt very ashamed how the State
Govt. appointed such a fantastic useless
people as Information
Commissioner.
1. On
12.11.2014., Sri Ramesh Kumar Mallik, an Information seeker of Bhadrak
district had filed RTI
Application to the PIO, Bonth Block office, Bhadrak seeking some
information ( though
it is mandatory, but the Commission
in its decision has not
written the subject matter of information). So
the readers could not know type of information sought by RTI Applicant from the decision of the
Commission.
2.
When the PIO did not respond the RTI Application,
Sri Ramesh, the applicant sent a reminder to the PIO to supply the information.
3. Finding no response
from the PIO, Ramesh filed First Appeal by post
dated 7.1.2015 to the First
Appellate Authority-cum-BDO, Bonth
Block under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. But astonishingly, the letter returned back from the block office with
remarks as the addressee is not seen in the office.
4. When
the First appeal letter returned back, Ramesh filed second appeal in the
office of Odisha Information Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. ( It
is interesting that the Commission has not mentioned in his decision the date of submission of Second appeal by appellant )
5. The
case was registered as second Appeal No. 1494/2015. On 4th August 2017 , after two years of filling the case, Sri L.N.Patnaik,
State Information Commissioner heard the
case and disposed with direction to redirect the first
appeal to the First
Appellate Authority to hear and dispose the case
within 45 days after receipt of
the order. In case of non-disposal of
the appeal petition by the FAA, the
appellant has the liberty to approach the Commission again by filling complaint or Second appeal.
6. Though
the Commissioner disposed the appeal on 4.8.17, but he
took one year to send copy of the order to appellant and First Appellate
authority on 24.8.18. As the First
Appellate authority has not yet disposed the case, as he received the decision
of the Commission recently. Had the
Commission sent the decision quickly just after disposal, the FAA would have
heard and ensured the information to appellant.
But due to inefficiency and callousness and lack of ability to write
order, the Commission took one year to
send the copy of decision.
7. The
Commission could have disposed the
case by directing the PIO and First
Appellate authority to provide the information.
8. The
Commission should have imposed penalty on PIO for denying information.
9. Four
years passed, the applicant Ramesh has
not yet got the information despite filling appeals to the
Information Commission.
This is the sorry state of
affairs of Odisha Information Commission.
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 3.9.18
Fantastic case you have picked up .
ReplyDelete