Crime
Branch Inquiry into Ghangapatna land Scam suppressed by State Govt. from 2014
to 2019
Information
about Ghangapatna Land Scam was also denied by
both office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
and Odisha Information
Commission
Mrs.
Sashi Prava Bindhani , Information
Commissioner is party to
suppression of vital information about Scam
by the PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
·
Since
last five years, Crime Branch
has kept pending of inquiry
into Ghangapatna Land Scam.
·
Information about
Ghangapatna Land Scam supplied by the PIO, office of tahasildar
was found false, incomplete and misleading.
·
Mrs. Sashi Bindhani
was found party
to suppression of
information . she abruptly closed
the case on false ground.
·
The
PIO, office of tahasildar dared
to ignore order of the
Commission and did
not appear the case for
one and half year.
·
The ADM, Khurda simply
ignored order of
Commission for five times
to conduct inquiry.
·
Mrs.
Bindhani did not
take any action against them
·
Big
Conspiracy of Mrs. Bindhani
and corrupt bureaucracy
was exposed
·
This
is glaring example how RTI
is derailed in Odisha
despite our hard
campaign to enforce
effective implementation of sun-shining law.
1.
Introduction
In July 2014,
Mass Media reported about
politically-influential people,
MLAs and Ministers namely Sri Kalpataru Das,
Sri Pranab Balanantaray and Sri
K.B.Singhdeo illegally acquiring
leased land of tribals through
fraudulent means in Ghangapatna area of
Bhubaneswar. These are
waste land leased plots given
to tribal and poor people by State Government
free of cost. After media expose
of this land scam, the opposition political parties and Civil Society Organisations
immediately demanded CBI inquiry
into this scam as BJD
leaders are involved
in it. However, to pacify the
rising public anger against
the Govt. Chief Minister declared
that Crime Branch
would conduct inquiry
into it in the month
of August, 2014.
2.
Issues
relating to Crime Branch
Inquiry and Filling
of RTI
On 9.9.2014., Crime Branch
lodged complaint (Case No. 22 dated 9.9.2014) , registered
under section 120(B)/420/467/468/471 IPC and
started inquiry into
it. After few days , it
was reported in media that
Crime Branch has returned
back all land to
Govt. khata. To understand the
kind of allegations and details of land
returned back to Govt. fold, two RTI
Applications dt. 19.9.14 and 31.12.14 was
filed to the PIO, office of
Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt. of Odisha
seeking the following
information.
A. Details
of allegation made for illegally occupying the Ghangapatna land under Khurda
district.
B. Name
of the persons or institutions or organizations who have illegally occupied
land and quantity of land occupied by them.
C. Copy
of documents which contain about the land (quantity of land) returned back to
Govt. and name of the institutions / persons from whose
land was returned back with quantity
of land following which the Govt. has
declared .
D. Information
about laws which were followed by the Government to get the land returned back
to Govt.
The
PIO forwarded both the RTI Applications to the PIO, office of Collector, Khurda which
was eventually forwarded
to the PIO, office of Tahasildar
, Bhubaneswar to supply the
information. On denial of
information by the PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar , Second Appeal
cases were filed in the
office of Odisha Information Commission which were registered
as SA Case
No. 284/15 and SA Case No. 1655/2015.
3.
Hearing of SA petitions
by Sashi Prava Bindhani, SIC and
Mockery of Odisha
bureaucracy with tacit
support of Commission -
Very Interesting story
After two years, the hearing
of both the
Second Appeal petitions SA No.
284/15 and SA No. 1655/2015 was
started by Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani, Information Commissioner
from 9.2.17. The Commission heard
the case twelve times (
within period of one and half year ) on 9.2.2017, 14.7.2017, 16.8.2017, 8.9.2017,
3.10.2017, 29.1.2018, 9.2.2018,
16.4.2018, 15.5.18, 26.7.18, 6.9.2018 (
date of disposal). The reason
behind fixing so many
dates for hearing and disposal is
that though the
Commission repeatedly issued notice
to the PIO, office of Tahasildar
, Bhubaneswar, he /she neither
responded the Commission nor filed
any submission in respect
of compliance to RTI Application nor cared
to the Commission to appear in
the hearing. Then, Mrs. Bindhani
issued notice five times
to ADM, Khurda under
Odisha Information Commission (
appeal procedure) Rules, 2006 to conduct
an inquiry into it and sought
information from the PIO,
Tahasildar. Astonishingly, ADM
did not respond the Commission.
Mrs. Bindhani could
not do anything, though the
Commission has ample power
to take legal action against them. It is
also very interesting to note here
that the PIO, office of Collector, Khurda submitted to the
Commission that though office of Collector
issued direction 13 times within period of one year
from 5.5.2017 to 5.4.2018 to
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to provide
information along with copy marked
to Commission, the office
of Tahasildar simply continued
to ignore the
order of the Collector, Khurda. But blatant
and naked violation of order of the
Collector, Khurda by
Tahasildar, the Collector did
not take any
action against him but
continued to send reminder
time and again to
provide information .
The
question may come to mind of readers how a mere
Tahasildar dared to
ignore order of the
Commission 10 times and order
of the Collector , Khurdha 13
times. The answer is very
simply. He was directed
from top not to supply
any information and continue
to ignore order of anybody. Nothing would happen
to him. As I am the appellant , I was closely monitoring
the attitude of Sashi Prava Bindhani innocently and
frequently attending the case
being pretty ware
about character of Sashi
Prava Bindhani that if she
gets opportunity finding absence of the appellant, she would
dispose the case
taking plea that “
the
appellant is satisfied and no need
to pursue the case
further.” It happened
in this case which will be
presented later on.
4.
Supply
of information by PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
After one
year of long silence not even producing any
response to repeated
notice the Commission, PIO , office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar supplied
the information on 8.2.18
and 9.5.18 which is
presented below.
a. The original
case records have
been seized by the economic
Office wing of the Odisha
crime Branch in connection with
EOW Case No. 22
dated 9.9.2014. The PIO provided
complete seizure list prepared on 10.9.14 and 3.1.15. This list
does not contain any
information about name of the lease
holder against whom cancellation
of Land lease case
was filed.
b.The PIO
supplied copy of the Khata No. 614 relating to Mouza : Ghangapatna indicating details of land
reverted back to the Government Khata .
c. The PIO
mentioned that Since the
matter is under
investigation by the EOW, Odisha Crime
Branch, difficulties have been
experienced to provide other
information sought for. It means investigation of Crime branch
is going on
since 5 years. In the name
of investigation, Crime
Branch has suppressed the scam
in order to protect land grabbers.
5.
Counter-submission by
the appellant
On 26.7.15., during hearing
of the case , the Commission was appraised
that the PIO
had supplied false, misleading and incomplete information. The Commission
directed the appellant ( Pradip Pradhan) to
submit discrepancy chart
point-wise. Discrepancy chart
was prepared immediately
and presented to the PIO
on the spot. The
details of chart is as
follows. The Commission directed the PIO
to supply the complete
and correct information.
Sl. No.
|
Information sought for
|
Information supplied by
PIO or
not
|
i.
|
Details of allegation made for illegally occupying the Ghangapatna
land under Khurda district.
|
Not supplied
|
ii.
|
Name of the persons or institutions or organizations who have
illegally occupied land and quantity of land occupied by them.
|
Not
supplied
|
iii.
|
Copy of documents which contain about the land (quantity of land)
returned back to Govt. and name of
the institutions / persons from whose
land was returned back with quantity
of land following which the Govt. has
declared .
|
Misleading
|
iv.
|
Information about laws which were followed
by the Government to get the land returned back to Govt.
|
Supplied by the
PIO
|
6.
Fallacious
order of Commission – a Simple email
changed Couse of
hearing leading to abrupt disposal - Very Interesting phenomena
On 6.9.18,
Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani
heard the case . I was absent and the
PIO was also absent
in the hearing. In the
order of that day, the
Commission has mentioned that the
PIO has sent a letter through e-mail which
was taken on record. But the Commission has not mentioned
any thing content of the
said email which is related
to my case. Even
the Commission has not
supplied this copy
of email in response to RTI Application dt. 22.1.19 filed by
me seeking entire file
and documents of this case. It is clearly apprehended that this email
influenced Mrs. Bindhani to close
the case. Mrs. Bindhani
started thinking how to close the case. The Commission hatched conspiracy
putting allegation on appellant (
me ) that “ though
the appellant was
present on 26.7.18, he has neither submitted
any written memorandum nor
any discrepancy chart as per
direction of the Commission on
26.7.18” . In
fact , On 26.7.18., I produced
discrepancy chart to the PIO and
copy to the Commission
copy of which has been
supplied to me by office
of Information Commission to response of my RTI
query dated 22.1.19. Though the Commission
disposed the case on 6.9.2018, but copy of the
order was sent to me
after five months on 25.1.19.
7.
Present Status of
Ghangapatna Land Scam
a. In the
name of Inquiry , Chief Minister
ensured suppression of investigation into Ghangapatna Land Scam
through Crime Branch. Five years
passed, Crime Branch held up inquiry to
protect land grabbers of
BJD.
b.The office
of Tahasildar , Bhubaneswar refused
to divulge information on
the pretext that
the original documents
has been seized. This is false
statement. Tahasildar might have called for all information from Crime Branch and supplied
to me.
c. The
Information Commission
should have ordered for
inquiry whether the Statement
of PIO about seizure
of orginal document by Crime Branch is
fact or false.
The Commission should have also ordered
Tahasildar to bring back all
documents from Crime Branch and supply
the same. As Mrs. Bindhani was instructed to
obstruct supply of
information, she closed
the case without
ensuring it.
d.Though the PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar continued
to simply ignore the order
of the Commission for one and
half year causing a lot
of harassment to me, the
Commission did not
impose penalty on him
as required under section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act. Mrs. Bindhani’s
tacit support to erring PIOs
has encouraged them to deny
information repeatedly to
Information-seekers.
e.Information
about Ghangapatna land scam still remains
mystery.
8.
Conclusion
After long
fight of five years
to get piece of
information, I was denied information
by the PIO which was facilitated
by Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani, Information Commissioner which
has been constituted
to protect RTI Act. The
PIO who did not
care to respond Commission for one year
was made scot-free
without any penalty being imposed
on him, though he deserves to be
penalized under section
20(1) of the RTI
Act. We , the
tax payers are paying
Rs. 2.5 lakh per
month to Sashi Prava
Bindhani to provide
justice to appellant . This
is the justice she
provided to me after
5 years of
long finght to get information. Sashi Prava Bindhani is
not the Commission
to protect RTI
but to protect
corrupt bureaucrats.
Pradip
Pradhan
Appellant
and RTI Activist
M-9937843482
Date- 26.3.19
No comments:
Post a Comment