Faulty RTI Regime in Odisha from
2011 to 2015
(Social Media Postings)
Prepared by : Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
1. BPL RTI-Applicant was put behind Bar in
Bolangir of Orissa
Gopabanbhu
Chhatria, a poor BPL person of Doegan Block under Bolangir district of Orissa
had sought information from Public Information Officer, office of Deogan Block
on 25.10.08 retation to details of
documents and copy of Muster Roll, Bill and Voucher against expenditure made in the construction of
Kandenjore Check-dam under Jarasingha
village of Deogan Block from. It is to be mentioned here that an amount of Rs.
10 lakh was sanctioned for construction of check dam under NFFWP during 2004-05 and again an amount of Rs. 3,60,272/- was
sanctioned under NREGA for the same
during 2007-08. It has been alleged by the villagers that huge amount of money
has been misappropriated by the Block officials and Panchayat Executive
Officer. Mr. Chhatria had also lost the land for the construction of check-dam.
However, PIO received the application and asked applicant Mr. Chhatria to come
to Block office on 10.11.08 to get the information. When Mr. Chhatria reached on the said date,
the PIO without giving him any information
asked him to come again on
15.12.08 to receive the information by depositing Rs.302.50. On 16.12.08, He
deposited the said amount for information in the Block office. The PIO in his letter No. 78 dated 17.1.09
informed Mr. Chhatria to take information who visited the Block office on
24.1.09 and received the information. Mr. Chhatria found the information
incomplete and non-attested. On 29.1.09, he returned all the information to the
PIO requesting him to make attested the information and supplied
him. It is worth to mention here that the information sought under
RTI is to be supplied within 30 days {section
7(1)} and if stipulated time period lapses, the applicant is entitled to
get information free of cost { section
7(4)}and a BPL person is exempted
from paying any kind of fees under section 7(5) of RTI Act. Though Mr. Chhatira deserves to get
information free of cost within stipulated time period, he was forced to pay
the fees. Even though he paid the fees, he was not provided all the
information.
Mr. Chhatria
had also submitted another application seeking samples of the materials used in
the construction of said check-dam. PIO
of Deogan Block never responded his application. Being aggrieved Mr. Chhatria,
lodged complaint against PIO before
Orissa Information Commission under section 18 of RTI Act clearing narrating
the incident and harassment made by
officials demanding action against PIO
and other officials under section 20 (1)
and (2) of RTI Act.
Let us come
to the other side of the story. Being
disturbed by the RTI Application, Block officials including BDO
manufactured a conspiracy to harass Mr.
Chhatria. As a first step in this direction, a
FIR was lodged against him in
the local police station. He was
arrested and put behind the Bar. Spending four days in jail, he was released on
dated.
After around
9 months since complaint was lodged, the
hearing of the case (Complainant
Case No. 4/2009) started in the court of Mr. Jagadanand, Orissa Information
Commissioner (OIC) on 20.10.09. During hearing, on instruction from the
Commission, the PIO handed over all attested copies of the information to the
complainant. Return of money OIC
instructed PIO to provide the sample to the complainant. The Commission
directed Collector to ensure supply of the sample of the work to the
complainant free of cost and conduct an
enquiry as to the quality conformity envisaged in the work order /
specification. The case was closed for next hearing.
On 2nd
hearing on dated 21.12.09, it was found that the complainant has not bee
provided sample. The PIO submitted that the complainant was intimated to
receive the sample of materials and the complainant Mr. Chhhatria visited
him on 14.12.09. and did not receive the
same on the plea that it should
have been collected in the presence of
either a Magistrate with proper seal or in the presence of the local witness. The Commission said
that the plea was valid and issued direction to the collector to ensure collection of sample in the presence of complainant in two
separate sealed packets, obtain signature of the complainant as well as the PIO on the body of the packet and hand over one
set to the Complainant. The enquiry report should reach by 15th
January, 2010. The date for next hearing was fixed on
19.1.2010.
On 14.1.2010,
the Complainant Mr. Chhatria received
the sample of the materials used in the work as per direction of the
Commission. Mr. Chhatria has written to
the Commission about how he was
mentally, physically harassed by
the officials and put behind the bar. He has sought
action both penalty and disciplinary proceedings against PIO and other officials
including compensation from the Govt.
Pradip Pradhan
Date -15.3.2010
3. Grabbing
funds in the name of conducting RTI Awareness Campaign is no more done by Orissa Information Commission
It is a fact that when a law is enacted, a
provision is kept therein for conduction of campaign for public awareness on
its provisions. Accordingly, the RTI Act has
made a clear-cut provision in Section 26 that the Central Government or the State Govt. as
the case may be shall organize public awareness campaign on RTI, publish
booklets and conduct training for Officials
in the state. As the Information and Public Relations Department is the
nodal Dept. in Orissa for implementation
of RTI Act, the Dept. was supposed to
organize such awareness programme in the
state. But the tragedy in Orissa is that since beginning, Orissa Information
Commission itself was found busy in conducting the awareness programme,
publishing booklets and organizing training for officers. The Officials of I
and PR Dept. remained idle without contributing anything for propagation of RTI
in the state. Neither any State Information Commission nor the Central
Information Commission was found involved in doing such awareness campaign on
RTI in their respective states or at a national level. But there is an
exception in Orissa. Within a span of
five years, Orissa Information Commission (OIC) spent more than Rs. 3 crores
sanctioned by Govt. for awareness
programme . But the output is very dismal.
As the
OIC remained busy in conducting awareness programme and inaugurating its events as Chief
Guest and Chief Speaker, their primary work of
disposal of complaints and 2nd appeal cases
suffered and pendency of
cases was found increasing in the office of the Commission. It needs to
be mentioned here that presently more
than 15000 cases are pending with
the Commission for disposal because of
sheer negligence and inefficiency of the
Information Commissioners.
Being
terribly shocked by illegal activities of the Commission, the Civil Society Groups
and RTI Activists in Orissa since
beginning opposed the Commission’s
involvement in the awareness campaign
and demanded their withdrawal from these activities. But the Commission
remained hell-bent in pursuing their illegal activities and did not care for
the criticism of Civil Society Groups. During
that time, a question cropped up in the mind of RTI Activists that who
decided and how the decision was taken
at Govt. level to sanction funds to the Commission for awareness
programme. Accordingly, RTI Application
was submitted to the Dept. of I and PR,
Dept. of Planning and Coordination,
Dept. of Finance and office of Orissa Information Commission to get the
information about it. Astonishingly,
the PIOs of each Dept instead of providing the information, forwarded the
application to the other. The PIO,
office of Orissa Information Commission supplied the information only about the
expenditure of the fund that they had manipulated to grab for themselves.
Finding no
information through RTI application, the RTI Activists decided
to get the information
through MLAs by way of questions to be raised by them in
the Orissa Legislative Assembly. Accordingly, Mr. Karendra Majhi, Hon’ble MLA
raised a non-Star question in the
assembly in the month of August 2009 for
the Hon’ble Minister for Information and Public Relation to answer as to
how the decision was taken at Govt. level
to sanction the fund to the Commission for awareness campaign going
against the provisions of RTI Act. Response of the Minister was “ Collection of Information is under Process”
. But the information has never been supplied to the Hon’ble MLA even till
today.
Then, the
RTI Activists under the banner of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan staged a day-long Dharana before Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on
26.11.2010 demanding enquiry
into misappropriation of 3.25
crore Rupees by the Commission in the name of awareness programme and
appropriate legal action against the
Commission at the earliest. A memorandum
was submitted to Hon’ble Governor, Orissa
in this regard. In the meantime,
Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra former Chief Secretary, Orissa assumed the
responsibility as Chief Information Commissioner in the state in the month of
Novemebr’2010. When he was apprised about
the illegal activities of the Commission, he decided not to
involve the Commission any further
in the awareness campaign and
accordingly wrote to the State
Govt. not to take fund for the
same. Now the fund
for awareness programme is available
with Dept. of I and PR, Nodal Dept. for RTI
in the state from the financial year
2011-2012, which is a right decision taken by the Government at long last
To
conclude, it took five years of
protracted struggle of RTI Activists and Civil Society Organisations to force the Information Commission to act as per the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-6.10.2011
4. Blatant failure of Orissa Information Commission to supply information to Orissa Legislative
Assembly
On 3.8.10,
Mr. Karendra Majhi, MLA of Orissa
Legislative Assembly in his Non-Star
Question No.- 3524 has asked in the Assembly
to Mr. Prafulla Samal, Minister
for Information and Public Relation, Govt. of Orissa to know about “the Act and Rules which has been be followed by Govt. of Orissa to sanction
huge amount to Orissa Information
Commission for organizing awareness
programme on RTI in the state and what is the function of Orissa Information Commission under RTI Act ?”
The reply
given by Mr. Prafulla Minister, Honourable Minister that “ the information has been
sought from Orissa Information Commission”. It means, Orissa Information
Commission has not supplied the information to the Minister for which he could not
give reply in the Assembly.
On 28.9.10, I
submitted RTI Application to the PIO, Orissa Legislative Assembly to get the
above mentioned information relating to reply given by Orissa Information
Commission on the question raised by Mr. Karendra Majhi. Getting the response
from PIO about lack of question No. in
my RTI Application, on 11.10.10, I personally visited the office of Orissa Legislative Assembly
to inform the PIO about the question No. However, the PIO
carried me to the concerned official in charge of the files to enquire into the
matter and asked him to show the copy
of questions and answer supplied by Orissa Information Commission with regard
to my RTI query. The concerned official
said that no information had been supplied by Orissa Information Commission
till yet. When asked about the time period of
reply to be given by any concerned office in case of their failure to provide information to the assembly
session, the PIO said that “time period is two months” . The deadline of time period of reply to
the question of MLA Mr. Majhi to be
supplied by office of Orissa Information Commission is 3.10.10.
Though
deadline is over, Orissa Information Commission (OIC) has not supplied the information. The Readers
should understand how Orissa Information Commission like ordinary Govt. office
is still acting to keep the information secret and does not care
to supply the information to august assembly, though five years of functioning of OIC is over in our state.
Does not it reflect the colonial mindset or orthodox bureaucratic culture of
Mr. D. N. Padhi, State Chief Information Commissioner and Mr. Jagadanand, State
Information Commissioner to keep the information secret. As we know, both the
Commissioners publicly speak and
propagate the idea of dissemination of information, transparency and
accountability by addressing many workshops, seminars as Chief Guest and Chief
Speaker.
Let us come
to other side of the story. In
fact, as per section 26 of RTI Act, the
State Govt. is empowered to organize public awareness campaign on RTI, Publish
booklets and conduct training for Officials
in the state. As the Information and Public Relation Department is nodal
Dept. in Orissa for implementation of
RTI, the Dept. has to organize such awareness programme in the state. But the tragedy in Orissa is
that since beginning, Orissa Information Commission itself is busy in
conducting the awareness programme, publishing booklets and organizing training
for officers. The Officials of I and PR Dept. is sitting idle without
contributing anything for propagation of RTI in the state. Neither State
Information Commissions nor Central Information Commission is found involved in
doing such awareness campaign on RTI in their respective states or at National
level. It is exception in Orissa. Orissa Information Commission has already
spent around Rs. 3 crores sanctioned by Govt.
for awareness programme within last
four years. Nobody knows what the output is. As we see, Orissa
Information Commissioners have precariously failed in their own assigned work
i.e., disposal of cases, the primary work of the Commission under RTI Act. More
than 6000 cases is pending in the office of Commission for disposal. The way
the Commission hears and disposes the cases, it will take around 4 years to
dispose pending cases, forget the new complaint or second
appeal cases to be filed in the coming four years.
Pradip
Pradhan
RTI
Activist, Orissa
Date-14.10.10
5. Progress of Orissa
Information Commission’s Defamation Case against RTI activists- PRESS RELEASE Dated 19th
February 2011
It
needs to be recapped that the erstwhile Chief Orissa Information Commissioner
Sri D. N. Padhi, retired since November 2010, had lodged a defamation/ damage
suit valued Rs.1 lakh in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar
against two RTI activists of the State Sri Pradip Pradhan and Chitta Behera (CS
Suit No. 1723 of 2010-M and Misc Case No. 764 of 2010 both dated 4.10.2010).
Pursuant to the said case, the Court had issued a temporary injunction to the
above parties for restraining them from publishing any defamatory/derogatory
remarks in any media against the Commission or is Chief Commissioner until the
appearance or filing of the show cause before the Court. The said parties had
duly appeared and submitted their respective show cause before the Court on
9.11.2010, the first date scheduled for the purpose. Since then the parties
have also appeared before the Court on several dates, though no substantial
progress has been achieved in hearing of the cases.
Meanwhile
the Opposite Party/Defendant No.1 Sri Pradip Pradhan filed a petition before
the said Court dated 2nd December challenging the maintainability of
the case filed by Orissa Information Commission. The salient grounds on which
Sri Pradhan challenged the Orissa Information Commission were such as (a) the
Chief Commissioner being a public servant has no locus standi to file the suit
as per Section 91 of CPC 1908; (b) the Commission or its Chief being a creature
of RTI Act 2005 has nowhere been authorized by the said Act to sue common
citizens on the charges of defamation and has therefore indulged in an extra-judicial
nuisance and wastage of valuable time of the Court; (c) the activists have been
pointing out through emails the acts of illegality, corruption, inefficiency
and moral turpitude of the Commissioners so as to ensure the rectification of a
malfunctioning Commission, not to defame any person; (d) the former Chief
Commissioner instead of amending himself and the Commission took resort to
vindictive action against the RTI activists to suppress their freedom of
expression; (e) if the Commission is allowed to sue the citizens by spending
money from the public exchequer, there shall be no end to this practice, and
the public exchequer shall be emptied out in the process. On these grounds, the
petition of the RTI activists therefore appealed for rejection of the
defamation case lodged by the Commission.
In
response to the above petition by the RTI activists, an Objection has been
submitted on behalf of the Commission to the Court on 19.02.2011. But the said
Objection while squarely avoiding a point wise reply to the above grounds has
shown some flimsy excuses as grounds for rejection of the petition. Among such
grounds are, (a) since the suit has been admitted by the Order of the Court, no
‘roving enquiry/ mini trial’ is required to ascertain the truth of the
allegations made against the Commission; (b) ‘No citizen, more over the
Defendant no.1 has any right/ authority’ to pass defamatory remarks against the
functioning of a statutory authority like Commission. The judgement of the
Commission can only be challenged before the High ourt. The defendant no.1 has
no authority ‘to scrutinize / supervise the omission or commission of the
administrative affairs of the Commission; (c) the defendants in the suit (RTI
activists) being ‘the private individuals’ have ‘committed the wrong in their
individual capacities’ against a public authority and their petition for
rejection of the plaint is therefore liable to be rejected.
The
next date of hearing shall be notified by the Court in due course.
It needs to
be mentioned here that the former Chief Information Commissioner Sri D.N.Padhi
who had filed the case against RTI activists in his official capacity has
already retired followed by the retirement of Sri Kasinath Sahu, then Secretary
of the Commission who swore the affidavit on behalf of Sri Padhi, the Orissa
Information Commission presently led by its Chief Sri T.K.Mishra has approved
the continuation of the said case by spending the money from public exchequer.
Thus the illegal act of his predecessor is being maintained and pursued by the
present Chief of Orissa Information Commission.
Pradip
Pradhan
Date-
20.2.2011
6. Why the series
of circulars issued by Chief Secretary, Orissa on Section 4 of RTI Act have
been doomed to a fiasco
In his latest
circular letter [No. RTI-52/11 8302 / CS(1&PR) dated 11.7.2011], the Chief
Secretary of Orissa has issued another instruction to all the Public
Authorities of the State to comply with mandatory provisions under
Section 4 (1) (a),( b), (c),( d), and Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) of RTI Act
forthwith. It is worthwhile to recall that way back on 9.1.2009 Mr. A.K.
Tripathy then Chief Secretary Orissa had also issued a similar circular
emphasizing strict compliance with Section 4 of the Act. Again, in a state
level review meeting convened by Chief Secretary, Orissa on 15.5.2009, all the
Public authorities were instructed to ensure proactive disclosures under
Section 4 of RTI Act. In the meeting it was also decided that stern action
would be taken against the erring Public Authorities who would fail to comply
with the instruction. Further, it is interesting to note that when the RTI Act
2005 was newly notified but not yet fully enforced, the Chief Secretary Orissa
had held a meeting of Secretaries of important Departments of the Government on
22.08.2005 to chalk out a plan of action for implementation of various
provisions of Act , where also the following decision was adopted in respect of
implementation of Section 4 of the Act-“3. Proactive
disclosure: According to the provision
of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act, every Public Authority is required to disclose
information voluntarily in 17 points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go
for voluntary disclosure of information to the maximum extent so that the
strength of application seeking information will be substantially reduced”.
(vide Para-3 of the Proceedings at http://203.193.146.66/ipr/Corecom.asp?lnk=11).
After a few months the Chief Secretary issued also an Operational Guidelines
dated 28.10.2005 for implementation of RTI Act in the State, wherein the
Para-16 read, “Top priority should be given for suo-motu dissemination of
maximum information in order to reduce the number of information seekers” (http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/guidelines.pdf).
But going by the admission made in the Chief Secretary’s latest circular, the
above deadline is long past by more than five and half years, reducing the
whole business of issuing circular after circular to a big joke only.
After long 6
years of enactment of RTI Act 2005, it hardly needs to be mentioned that
Section 4 is virtually the heart and soul of the Act, though neglected by every
public authority including the office of Chief Secretary itself. As is well
known, the Section requires each Public Authority to make proactive disclosure
of information about 17 subjects within 120 days of enactment of the Act i.e.,
12th October 2005. The said bunch of information was required to be
disclosed in local language and widely disseminated through notice board,
newspapers and electronic media including internet etc. and to be made
available to the citizens instantly free of cost or on payment of xerox cost
only. Both head and PIO of every public authority were accountable to provide
instant access to the related information to the desirous citizens who unlike
in case of Section-6 were not required to submit any application for the
purpose.
Now the
question arises, why such a big failure on the part of the State Government in
ensuring the compliance to Section 4 by public authorities from top to bottom?
And, how many circulars require to be issued by the Chief Secretary Orissa in
years to come for ensuring the necessary compliance?
If we delve
deep into the reasons for the above kind of failure, it would be noticed that
non-observance, nay, gross neglect by all the public authorities in respect of
the Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 (http://203.193.146.66/ipr/RTI/amendment%20to%20ORTI%20Rules,2005.pdf)
is the major one. Such Rules which is in place only in the State of Orissa
provides inter alia for maintenance of a Register in the office of every public
authority for recording the particulars of every person who would visit it for
seeking information/ inspection of proactively disclosed information under
Section-4 of the Act. Such a register, if maintained properly, shall not
only store a proof of the
concerned
visitor but also serve as an incentive to him to visit the office of the public
authority more and more. Mainly because, through this route he/she can
instantly access a lot of information about his village, community and such
public matters without having to submit a written application along with
application fees, wait for 30 days to receive the requested information and
also pay Rs.2/- per page towards the cost of information. But, strangely
enough, none of the circulars of Chief Secretary has ever instructed the public
authorities to comply with the above mentioned State Rule for maintenance of a
separate register in their office for the purpose of Section-4.
The next
major reason for non-compliance to Section 4 in Orissa is a series of queer
orders issued by the former Chief Orissa Information Commissioner Mr.D.N.Padhi
on 20.06.2006 wherein he gave a clear signal to the public authorities of the
State that nothing would happen against them on account of their non-compliance
to the provisions of Section-4. In those orders he even went further to state,
“As the complaint petition does not come within purview of Section 18 of
Right to Information Act, 2005, the same is rejected” (For instance, vide
Complaint Case No.3/2006). While such an order was patently ultra vires the
parent Act, it served as the greatest nuisance against RTI Act in Orissa by way
of emboldening the public authorities and PIOs to go on a violation spree
against Section 4 with impunity. Till date Orissa Information Commission has
been working in a Section-4 phobia mode, no matter Mr.D.N.Padhi has been
meanwhile replaced by Mr.T.K.Mishra in the capacity of Chief Orissa Information
Commissioner. What can be a better proof of Commission’s cultivated lenience
towards Section-4 baiters than the glaring fact that not a single violator of
Section 4 has been punished or censured by the Commission during all these 5
years?
Given an
all-failure of both Government and Information Commission in respect of Section
4, the RTI users of Orissa heaved a sigh of relief when Orissa High Court on
admitting a PIL filed by Mr. Sanjeeb Satpathy an RTI activist associated with
Antodaya, Kalahandi issued notice to both State Govt. and Orissa Information
Commission to file their respective response as to why have failed to ensure
compliance to Section-4 thus far. It seems the Chief Secretary has been
awakened by this notice of High Court to show some activity or the other on the
front of Section-4, even if for purely cosmetic purposes.
Be that as it
may, if the two major pillars of RTI regime of the State i.e. Government and
Information Commission really mean business for compliance to Section-4, they
should adopt the following 3 measures-
a.Instruction
by the Chief Secretary to each and every public authority of the State to
maintain a Register for recording the particulars of the visitors seeking
information under Section-4 as required under Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules
2006;
b. Orissa
Information Commission to review its decisions whereby it exempted the
complaints against violation of Section-4 from the purview of adjudication by
the Commission; and OSIC to award severe penalty against the violators of
Section 4, which would serve as exemplary to the rest of violators among
PIOs and public authorities; and
c.The Office
of Chief Secretary and the Office of Secretary to I&PR Dept, the nodal RTI
agency of the State should show the model in compliance to Section-4 by way of
maintaining the concerned Register for visitors under Section-4 and making
necessary logistic arrangement for allowing the members of public wishing
inspection of and access to documents falling under proactive disclosures of
RTI Act.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-
10.9.2011
7.
Central RTI Rules, 2012 more
progressive than Orissa RTI Rules, 2005
Taking into consideration the suggestions made by Civil Society Groups
and RTI Activists across the country, on dated 31.8.12, the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension in Govt. of India, through a Gazette
Notification has framed the Central RTI Rules, 2012 for effective
implementation of RTI Act. The said Rule is only applicable for Public
Authorities coming under Central Govt. ( Rules attached) . This is at present the best RTI Rules ever
framed in the country since 2005. Some
salient features of Central Rules are as follows.
a.
An application under section 6(1) of the RTI Act shall be accompanied by
a fee of rupees ten and not contain more than five hundred words, excluding
annexure, containing address of central public information officer and that of
the applicant. Provided that no application shall be rejected only on
the ground that it contains more than five hundred pages. (Rule-3)
b.
Fees for providing information under section 4(4) and sub-section 1 and 5 of
section 7 of the RTI Act. ( Rule-4)
a.
Rupees two per each page in A-3 or smaller size paper
b.
Actual cost or price of a photocopy in large size paper
c.
Actual cost or price for samples or models
d.
Rupees fifty per diskette or floppy
e.
Price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of photocopy from extracts
of the publication
f.
No fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection
and a fee of rupees 5 for next hour or a fraction thereof;
g.
So much of postal charge involved in supply of information that exceeds fifty.
c.
No fee under rule-3 and rule- 4 shall be
charged from the any person who is below poverty line provided
a copy of the certificate issued by the appropriate Government in this
regard is submitted along with the application. ( Rule-5)
d.
Mode of payment of fee shall be in cash, by demand draft or banker’s
cheque or Indian Postal order, payable to Account Officer of the
public authority by electronic means to public authority, if facility for
receiving fees through electronic fees is available with public authority (rule-6)
But Orissa RTI Rules still remains an absurd, anti-people and ultravires instrument vis-à-vis the RTI Act. Despite continuous e protest by the Civil
society and RTI Activists in the state since 2005, the anti-people Odisha
bureaucracy is hellbent to continue with the said Rules , while other
State Governmenta and Central Govt. have suitably amended their respective
rules for effective implementation of RTI Act. Some salient features of absurd provisions of
Orissa RTI Rules, 2005 are as follows-
Absurd,
Anti-people and illegal provisions of Orissa RTI Rules 2005
A.
Provision for Proof of Citizenship - illegal
Rule-2 (e)
‘Identity’- The given definition which requires an applicant to show the
evidence of his ‘citizenship like an electoral photo identity card, a passport
or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of
the person’ at the time of submission of RTI Application needs to be
altogether abolished, as it is ultra vires the parent Act, which under
Section 6(2) says inter alia that a citizen is not required to give ‘any
other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him’.
B.
Compulsory Application Form- illegal
The State
Govt. has imposed a compulsory application Form (Form-A), which requires to be
filled up by an RTI applicant while seeking for information. The said lengthy
11-column Form-A requires the copy of Voter’s Card or Passport to be attached
as a proof of citizenship. This provision not only deprives the citizens below
18 years of their right to make an application for information, but also
discloses personal details like name of father/spouse, permanent address, age
and sex etc. (as mentioned in the voter card/passport) in contravention of the
Section 6(2) of the Act. Further, it is seen that it has become
very difficult on the part of the common people to fill it up. So this Form
needs to be withdrawn, and the people should be allowed to apply in their own
manner as is the practice at Central level and in rest of States.
C.
Denial of Application and Information through Email- illegal
Though
Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 and Rule 4(1) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 provide for
submission of RTI application and dispatch of information implied therein, not
a single public authority under the control of Government of Odisha has been
able to operationalise such a provision, leading to denial of right to
information to a vast bulk of citizens in and outside the State. It needs to be
remedied forthwith.
D.
Compulsory Forms for 1st & 2nd Appeals and Appeal fees- illegal
The
imposition of compulsory Forms, Form-D and Form-E along with Appeal fees of
Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively to be paid through Court Fee Stamps is simply
ultra vires Section 27(2) of the parent Act, and therefore needs to be
withdrawn and replaced by a provision declaring no form or fees for any appeal
to be made under the Act.
E.
Fees collected from BPL families against cost of information- illegal
In Odisha,
the PIO including those of Odisha Information Commission are collecting
fees towards cost of information from the BPL people, in naked contravention of
Section 7(5) of RTI Act. As per a study undertaken by PRIA in 2008 a good
number of BPL people who initially submitted the RTI applications to various
offices in Odisha didn’t collect the information as they were asked to pay the
fees, which they couldn’t afford. So the illegal practice of collecting
information fees from the BPL people in Odisha must be stopped forthwith.
F.
Form-B (letter of intimation)- illegal
The Form-B
(PIO’s letter of intimation to the applicant) is illegal, since it doesn’t
contain, as it should under Section 7(3) of the Act, any space for break-up of
the total fees demanded and the particulars of first appellate authority before
whom the applicant, if aggrieved by the decision of PIO, may lodge an appeal
within the time-limit to be specified therein. Thus Form-B needs to be
redesigned as per the mandate of the Act.
G.
Form-C (letter of rejection)- illegal
The Form-C
prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 is out and out illegal for it cites some
arbitrary grounds for rejection of an Application falling outside the purview
of the Act, such as, ‘Your Application is not complete in all respects’, ‘Your
identity is not satisfactory’, ‘The information is available in published
material available to Public’, ‘The information as sought for by you is
available in our Website’ and ‘For any other reason’. The Act has
stipulated clearly the possible grounds for rejecting an application fully or
partially, such as those covered under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 only. The
Form-C therefore needs be withdrawn to honor the letter and spirit of Act.
H.
Absurd language in Orissa RTI Rules 2005- illegal
Rule
2(1-c) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005, reads, “’fee’ means amount payable by the
applicant for obtaining any information under the provisions of sub-section (1)
of Section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 5 excluding the cost of
information”. It conveys no meaning and makes a mockery of the entire set of
the above Rules par excellence.
I.
Rule- 4: Prohibitive Modes of fees payment- illegal
The Schedule
to Orissa RTI Amendment Rules 2006 stipulates the Fees/Amount to be charged in
respect of application fees, cost of information fees and appeal fees. Apart
from the fact that the provision of Appeal Fees is altogether illegal as
already mentioned above, the modes of payment of application fees are only cash
or treasury-challan, and that of fees towards information only cash. From the
experience of nearly six and half years of RTI in the State, it has been made
clear that not only the people in the State find it extremely hard to make use
of such restrictive modes of payment, but the citizens outside the State find
it impossible of use. The question arises, while IPO is the standard mode of
payment for all purposes at Central level and in rest of the States, why
shouldn’t it be prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules besides other possible modes
of payment like Money Order, Demand Draft, Banker’s Cheque, Electronic
Payment?
J.
Miscellaneous violations of law-
The Speaker
of Odisha Legislative Assembly has not complied with the mandate of notifying
its separate RTI Rules under Section 28 or for making suo motu disclosures
under Section 4(1b) of the Act. The Governor of Odisha, though a Competent
Authority in respect of Constitutional bodies like Odisha Election Commission,
Odisha Finance Commission and Odisha Tribal Advisory Body under Section 2(e-iv)
has not as yet complied with his duty to notify the separate RTI Rules for such
bodies, nor has made any suo motu disclosures as required under Section 4(1b)
of the Act. The Governor has also failed to fulfill his mandatory obligation
under Section 17 to take punitive action against the Information Commissioners,
against whom several citizens have lodged complaints on the grounds of
inefficiency, corruption and moral turpitude. The Annual Reports on the state
of RTI as prepared by the Odisha Information Commission, though filled with
false, fictitious, irrelevant and self-congratulatory stuff, have been
straightaway lain on the floor of the Assembly, without any corrective exercise
undertaken by the nodal department of I&PR, in contravention of Section 25
of the Act. The above mentioned Constitutional authorities need to make do
their performance deficit forthwith to honor the letter and spirit of RTI Act
2005.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-15.8.12
8.Compulsory
RTI Application Form-“A” prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules, 2005- illegal and
absurd
No RTI
application Form required at all- Why?
All of us
are quite aware that Odisha stands as the poorest state in the country. It is
also the land of highest rate of
illiteracy in the country. A big chunk of its population who are supposedly literate can not even read, let alone write-
all this due to poor quality of education provided in the Government schools
across the state. As most of the people in rural and tribal areas remain poor
and illiterate, they could not access basic services and development projects
meant for them. Neither are they able to raise their voice against corruption
and mal-administration by the officials,
contractors and private parties.
Right to
Information Act which was enforced w.e.f. 15
June, 2005 is viewed as the most powerful instrument in the hands of the
common people to fight corruption and ensure a transparent and accountable
system of governance in the country. It recognizes sovereign power of the
citizens of the country, before whom all public authorities from the highest office i.e. President of India to the
lowest unit of administration i.e. Gram Panchayat would remain
accountable. As is well known, over the
last seven years of implementation of RTI Act in the country, many crucial
information are coming to light and mega scams getting exposed through
RTI. Large numbers of common people
are using RTI on a massive scale
indifferent states.
But RTI in
Odisha presents an altogether dismal picture. Around 97% of the people are
still ignorant about the use of RTI Act.
Though they are aware about the law, they could not use it because of absurd,
useless and illegal Compulsory RTI Application Form “A”. This Compulsory Form prescribed under Orissa
RTI Rules 2005 is the only instrument to access the information held by the
Public Authorities under the State Govt.
But, with a slight wrong in
filling up RTI Application form prescribed under Orissa Rules, his or
her application stands rejected. The
Common people never know how to fill up this lengthy 11-column Application
form. Even the educated people are seen taking advice from RTI experts to fill
the application form, let alone the case of the lay people. To fill up the form is a cumbersome
matter. Further, it is also very
difficult to find out the application form in any Govt. office. The officials
simply refuse to give application form to the information-seekers.
What does RTI Act speak?
It is
mentioned under section 6(1) of the RTI Act
that “ A person, who desires any
information under this Act, shall make a request in writing
or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in official language of the area
in which the application is being
made , accompanying such fee as may be
prescribed. ----------“. It means no form is at all required for making an
application for seeking information.
Practice at Central level e
and in Other States.
Recognizing
the mandate of RTI Act , the Central
Government in its Rules ( Central RTI Rules, 2005 now replaced
by 2012) has not prescribed any Form. It is open for citizens to submit
an application in any form to any office under the Central Govt. to get the
information. Most State Govternments have
not prescribed any compulsory Application Form at all. But a few states
have prescribed model Application
Formats to help citizens apply for information. But the Application Formats
prescribed by the State Governments are not compulsory either. This is just a
sample to guide the citizens as to how to apply for information. Below is the
list of Rules of the Centre and state governments and their position in respect
of Application Form under the RTI Act -
|
Rules |
Prescription of Application Form |
|
Central
RTI Rules, 2005 and 2012 |
No
Application Form or Format prescribed |
|
Delhi
RTI Rules, 2005 |
No
Application Form or format prescribed |
|
Arunchal
Pradesh RTI Rules |
A
simple five column RTI Application Form “A” prescribed |
|
Maharastra
RTI Rules, 2005 |
A sample
Application format has been prescribed. |
|
Assam
RTI Rules |
No
Application Form or format prescribed |
|
Bihar
RTI Rules |
A simple
Application Format prescribed |
|
Harayana
RTI Rules |
Simple
Form-A prescribed |
|
Kerala
RTI Rules, 2005 |
No
Application Form prescribed. |
|
Rajasthan
RTI Rules |
Format for Application has been prescribed |
|
Punjab
RTI Rules, 2007 |
Simple Application Form A prescribed |
|
West
Bengal RTI Rules |
Rules do
not provide for a format for application under RTI Act |
|
Jharkhand
RTI Rules, 2005 |
No
application format or form prescribed |
|
Tamil
Nadu RTI Rules, 2005 |
State
RTI Rules do not provide for a format or form for application. |
|
Uttarkhand
RTI Rules |
No
Application format prescribed. |
Why di d Odisha Govt.
prescribe the Compulsory
Application Form “A”
It
is the conspiracy of State Govt. to prevent the people from applying for information under the RTI Act. The
bureaucrats of the State Govt. are quite aware that the Form is so critical
that the common people will never fill up the form to seek the information. Thus, the Public
Authorities of the State Govt. will receive less number of RTI applications. Orissa RTI Rules have also made a restrictive provision in Form ”C”
that if the application Form is
not duly filled up or the identity of the applicant not satisfactory to the PIO, then the PIO has the liberty to reject it. But
such rejection goes against the Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The publications made by Odisha Information
Commission and Gopabandhu Academy of
Administration have maintained
conspicuous silence over the procedure for seeking information from the Public Authorities of Central
Govt. It has only mentioned the use of
application Form-A as the only method of applying for information to any Govt.
office. That’s why the people are often
seen submitting their RTI applications
even to Central Govt. offices like RBI,
nationalized Banks, Railways, Doordarshan, BSNL
etc. using Form A prescribed by Government of Orissa, whereas no application Form is required in
such cases.
It is
simply ludicrous that despite
continuous protest against the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 and persistent
demand for its withdrawal, the state bureaucracy is hell-bent to continue with this absurd and illegal form.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-21.8.12
9. So-called Proof of Citizenship required to be submitted long with RTI Application under Odisha RTI
Rules is ultra vires and draconian- Why?
Section 3 of RTI Act stipulates that “all
citizens shall have the right to information”. Under Section 6(2) of the Act
says “An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give
any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except
those that may be necessary for contacting him”. It means any person seeking
information under RTI is not required to submit anything else than contact
address by which the information sought would reach him/her.
Recognising
this mandate of of the law, neither Central Govt. nor any State Government
except Odisha has made any provision
for proof of citizenship to be submitted by the applicant along with RTI Application.
Govt. of Odisha’s naked defiance against RTI Act
Unhappily
enough, Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 framed by State Govt. of Odisha seems to be the
odd man out in the whole gamut of RTI instruments made in the country. Apparently to comply with Section 27 of the
RTI Act, the State Govt. has framed Rules called Odisha RTI Rules, 2005.
Rule-2(e) has defined “identity” as the evidence of his ‘citizenship like an electoral photo identity card, a passport or any
other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the
person’ . It means any person seeking information has to submit his or her
proof of identity like voter Identity card or a passport to any public
authority under State Government. Again it has been provided that if the PIO is
not satisfied with the document produced by the RTI-Applicant purportedly as
proof of citizenship, he may reject the application on that very ground as
permissible under Form-C prescribed under the said State Rules. This very
ground occurring at column (iii) of Form-C is worded thus- “your
identity is not satisfactory”. This is the naked violation of RTI Act,
especially its Section 6(2) by the State Govt of Orissa.
Problems encountered by
Information-seekers in the offices of State Govt.
Being
armed with such a handy provision, the
PIOs having a dubious intention are found rejecting a number of RTI
Applications on so many flimsy grounds
including a funny one- that photocopy of voter Identity card attached as proof
of citizenship is not visible. Such PIOs take such absurd plea when they intend
to reject RTI applications that seek sensitive information related to scam,
corruption or irregularities. The
students below 18 years of age and having no voter card cannot apply for
information in Orissa because they can’t produce any proof of citizenship
identity along with RTI application. Submission of school/ college identity
card as proof is left to the discretion of PIO to accept or reject it, Big chunks of population who have neither
voter ID nor passport are deprived of their right to access information under
RTI Act though they are very much citizens of the country, and as such entitled
to accessing information under Section 3 of the Act.
Intention of State bureaucracy behind framing the identity
Provision
The hidden
agenda of the state bureaucracy is to restrict the numbers of RTI Applications
to be submitted and also to deprive the people of their right to access
information under the RTI Act. Secondly,
submission of a voter card or a passport will expose the personal identity of
RTI applicant. It has been observed that with the identity of RTI Applicants
getting exposed, the vested interest groups including the corrupt officials are
found reaching to the concerned RTI
Applicants to pursue and pressurize him
to withdraw RTI Application in lieu of some gift or bribe. If the RTI
applicant, honest and true to his intentions, refuses to give in, he would be
threatened with dire consequence , even beaten up, and subjected to false cases
etc. It is ironical, while there is a move afoot at the national level to enact
a law for protection of whistleblowers, the State Govt. of Orissa has been
insisting on exposure of the identity of RTI applicants who are potential
whistleblowers.
Decision of Central Information Commission
While
deciding a Complaint Case ( File No CIC/AD/C/2011/001736 decided on
11.1.2012),, Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Central Information Commissioner observed,
“there is no provision in the RTI Act to seek identification of a
citizen who seeks information from any Public Authority. The PIO of the Company
is warned not to seek such identification in future u/s 3 of the RTI Act, which
stipulates that all citizens shall have the Right to Information . . . .”. The
fact of the case is that an RTI Applicant Mr. M Rangarajan of Bangalore had
sought information about the provision of retirement benefits of the
employees from the PIO, M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd under Ministry
of Railways, 5, Hide Road, Kolkata - 700 043. But the said PIO quoting Section
3 of the Act demanded the proof of citizenship identity of the applicant before
he would be able to disclose the
information sought. Then the aggrieved applicant approached the Central
Information Commission with a complaint against the said illegal order of the
PIO. Having heard the parties to the case, the CIC Mrs.Dixit passed the above
order quoted above.
Role of Odisha Information Commission
But
tragically enough, in Odisha blatantly anti-RTI and anti-people provisions are
being upheld and justified by Odisha Information Commissioners
during the hearing of the cases and as well in course of their address in
public meetings. The only lame excuse they unabashedly proffer in defense of
the above anti-citizen Rules is that the State Govt. has
framed it. While saying so, the Commissioners blissfully ignore Section
25(5) of the Act, which authorizes the Commission to recommend to any public
authority including the State Govt. to take steps for removing any
deviation from and ensuring conformity to the letter and spirit of Act.
Though more than 6 years and 9 months has passed since Odisha Information
Commission started functioning, it has not made a single recommendation
to remove the anti-citizen and ultra vires Odisha RTI
Rules 2005. Of all, the Compulsory Application Form, proof
of citizenship and prohibitive mode of payment of
application fee are the worst nuisances wrought against every citizen’s right to information, and woefully enough, Odisha
Information Commission has been sleeping over it at tandem with the dubious
intentions of the State Government.
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date- 24.8.12
1.
Writ
Petition filed in Odisha High Court for removal of Sri
Jagadanand from the post of Odisha Information Commissioner
On
22.1.13, Sri Biswa Keshari Mohanty, Chandbali of Bhadrak district,
Odisha has filed a writ petition in Odisha High
Court challenging the failure of Mr. Jagadanand,
Odisha Information Commissioner in redressing his
Complaint against the concerned public authority as per provision of RTI Act
and for directing the office of
Governor, Odisha for enquiring into and taking appropriate action in the
context of his Complaint against
the Orissa Information Commissioner. The Opposite Parties in this case
are Secretary, Dept. of Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Odisha,
Secretary, office of Governor, Odisha, Secretary, office of Odisha Information
Commission, Sri Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner, Medical officer,
Chandabali Community Health Centre, PIO, office of CHC, Chandabali etc.
On
22.3.2010, Sri Mohanty had submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office of CHC,
Chandabali, Balasore district seeking information about details on the number
of staff, their salary, vaccancy position along with other queries. After
receiving the application, the concerned PIO by his letter no. 193 dated
31.3.2010 asked him to go through the desired documents on 13th April, 2010 at
11 a.m. onwards in the said office. Accordingly, Sri Mohanty went
to the office and searched for the PIO. Unable to trace him out, he met the
Medical officer and requested him to allow him to go through the
information. But his request was turned down by the Medical Officer.
Then he made a first appeal to the FAA and finding no response,
a second appeal was lodged by him before the office of the State
Information Commission.
The case was registered as Complaint Case No.2935/10.
Sri Jagadanand took hearing of the case. However during the course
of hearing, the PIO submitted that since the applicant had
inspected the relevant records , the information on the matter couldn’t be
furnished . Having heard both parties, Sri Jagadanand directed
the PIO to ensure furnishing a full set of information expeditiously free of
cost to the Petitioner within 10 days of receipt of the order and report
compliance thereof. He further issued show cause notice to the PIO
directing him to appear along with a detail show cause memorandum to explain as
to why penalty under section 20(1) shall not be imposed.
After
receiving the order, the PIO supplied the information to the
Complainant and the case was again heard by the Commission on
16.4.2012 . During hearing it was observed that the first appeal
preferred by the complainant has neither been dealt with nor
disposed of by the first appellate authority,
so the Commissioner directed the
first appellate authority to explain as to why disciplinary action shall not be
recommended against him for inaction and dereliction of duties . The
Commission also issued show cause notice to Bhagaban Chandra Pati,
PHEO-cum-Ex-PIO and Gouranga Chandra Jena, Surgery specialist-cum-First
Appellate Authority to appear along with their respective show cause memo and
explain as to why penalty shall not be imposed as per section 20(1) of the Act.
In
the next hearing, Bhagaban Chandra Pati filed an affidavit to the effect that
he was never designated as a Public Information Officer at any point of time in
the office of CHC. But the Commissioner without taking the
above said facts in to consideration and without applying his judicial
mind, issued the order dated 23.5.2012 and illegally directed the present
medical officer to pay a compensation of Rs 2000/- to the complainant and only
cautioned the first appellate authority to be careful and not to repeat this
act in future. He further directed the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Healh &
Family welfare Department to release a comprehensive guideline to all public
authorities for mandatory public disclosure under provisions of the
Act.
Sri
Mohanty, the petitioner has submitted that Sri Jagadanand, SIC without
appreciation of the facts as well as provisions of the law illegally disposed
of the case and also closed the same without imposing penalty on the
erring PIOs and the appellate authority. He also submitted a
Complaint to Governor, Odisha under Section-17 of RTI
Act praying for action against Sri Jagadanand on account of his
failure to deliver justice to him and penalize the PIOs and the 1st
Appellate authority. The Governor remained silent on it.
Sri
Mohanty has prayed to the Hon’ble High Court to direct recovery of penalty from the erring officials
and to issue a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other suitable writ
directing the office of Governor to take appropriate legal
action against Sri Jagadanand, SIC as per law and remove him
from his office within a stipulated period.
Pradip
Pradhan
RTI
Activist, Odisha
M-99378-43482
Date-
23.1.13
2.Writ Petition filed in Odisha High Court for
removal of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commission on the ground of incapacity, lack of judicial
mind and
arbitrary closure of cases by him without ensuring information to the
complainants.
On 2.5.13, Sri Karunakar Behera, a petitioner
of Mayurbhanj district has filed a writ petition W.P (C) No. 10207
/2013 in Odisha High Court
challenging the decision of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information
Commissioner who with malafide intention disposed
and closed the case on 4.1.13 without
providing the requested information.
The Petitioner Sri Behera has
appealed the court to quash the order dated 04.01.2013 and has
prayed for a direction to the
PIO, office of CDMO, Mayurbhanj to
provide the required information
and direct the Information
Commission to take action deemed proper
against the concerned Public Information Officer within a stipulated period . The Petitioner has also prayed for removal of
Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty from the post of Odisha Information Commissioner on the
ground of inefficiency and incapacity.
On
20.7.10, Sri Karunakar Behera had submitted an RTI Application to the PIO,
office of Chief District Medical Officer
seeking information about pensionary benefits of Sri Prabir Ch. Mohapatra, retired Health Inspector. It needs to be mentioned here that Sri Prabir Ch. Mohapatra though retired in
1997 is not getting his
pension since last 16 years due to
corruption and malpractice in the
office of CDMO, Mayurbhanj and callous
attitude of the officials. He has been
harassed a lot. With a view to give
justice to Sri Mohapatra, Karunakar
Behera had sought this information.
Finding no information Sri Behera filed a complaint case before the State
Information Commission requesting to redress his grievances. The said case was
numbered as C.C No.1982 of 2010 and preliminary notice was issued to the
opposite parties by the Commission by memo No.850 dated 13.01.2011 directing
the PIO to submit the status report to the state commission within 15 days of
the receipt of the letter and to send a copy of the report to the complainant.
The PIO,
after receiving the notice from the State Information Commission by his letter
No.616 dated 24.01.2011 supplied certain information which was received by the
petitioner on 24.02.2011, that is,
after 203 days of the application. But the information supplied by the
PIO was vague, false and incorrect and
certainly not the information sought for .
Sri Behera brought it
to the notice of the Commission and the
Commission fixed the date on 27.10.2011
for hearing of the case but on the same day the Information Commissioner,
Mr. Jagadananda Mohanty without any just
cause and reason adjourned the case although he was present on that day. Sri Behera made a complaint to the
State Chief Information Commissioner
about the malafide intention of Sri Jagadanand for adjourning
the case.
Then after
one year, the case was heard on 2.3.12
by Sri Pramod Kumar Mohanty, another State Information Commissioner, who directed
the petitioner to produce the discrepancy chart and the PIO to supply the correct information.
The PIO again supplied the misleading information on 17.4.12.
Then, on
7.5.12, this case was heard by Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief
Information Commissioner who directed the PIO to supply all permissible information
within 15 days and closed the case. The PIO was also directed to submit an
affidavit to the Commission stating that all the available and permissible
information has been supplied to the complainant.
The PIO
did not supply any information. Sri
Behera again filed the second appeal petition on the advice of Law Officer of
the Commission. Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC heard the case on 22.11. 12. The
Commission directed the PIO to allow the complainant to make inspection of documents. But the PIO did not
allow the inspection. Sri Behera, Complainant again
approached the Commission.
On 4.1.13, Sri Jagadanand did not
hear the case but
abruptly closed it without
ensuring any information and also without imposing any penalty
on the PIO for violation of the RTI Act.
Now, Sri
Behera has approached the honorable High
Court to get justice so as to help a retired employee who is
running from pillar to post to
get his long pending pensionary
benefits.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date- 9.5.13
3.Writ
Petition filed in Odisha High Court for withdrawal of derogatory and defamatory
language used in the decision written by Sri Jagadanand, Odisha Information
Commissioner
Sri Jagadnand has committed
two mistakes i.e., (a) closed the
case without ensuring supply of
information, and (b) reflected derogatory and defamatory remarks of the PIO against the
complainant in his decision
which is illegal and against
judicial decorum.
On
30.5.13, I had filed a writ petition in Odisha High Court seeking direction to
Sri Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner to expunge the derogatory and
defamatory remarks used in the decision
against me and to remove the judgment
from their official website and further direct the Commission to provide accurate information as sought
for, free of cost and also to pay the
requisite compensation to me.
That,
while deciding a Second Appeal case No.
439/2011 on 9.2.2012, Sri
Jagadanand remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority, Dept. of
Health and Family Welfare , Govt. of
Odisha and wrote the objectionable and illegal remarks of the PIO
( the petitioner is involved in fraudulent land deals with many
persons including Sanat Mohapatra and
was arrested in a Criminal case). This sentence is illegal, perverse and
reflects the non-application of judicial mind on the part of the Commissioner. I have also alleged in my petition that Sri
Jagadanand, SIC lacks in minimum knowledge about RTI Act. Without hearing from the petitioner, how could Sri Jagadanand record
the statement of the PIO and insert it
in the order sheet, an act that does not
come within the domain of the
Commission.
In my
petition, I have pointed out that due
to the illegal and malafide action of the opposite parties , the petitioner was
deprived of getting the information sought for
and also derogatory and
defamatory remarks recorded by Sri
Jagadanand has maligned my image and the image of my family in Odisha as
well as before my friends outside Odisha
and as a result of which I have
felt highly humiliated.
The
case is
that on 1.8.2011, I had
submitted an RTI Application to
the PIO, office of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Odisha seeking
information relating to moveable and
immoveable property details of Sanat
Kumar Mohapatra who was
serving as an assistant surgeon
in police hospital, Puri and that of his family members. The PIO rejected the RTI Application on the
ground of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the PIO, I made
a first appeal before the first appellate authority , who illegally
dismissed the appeal on the
ground that the appellant was found
absent and did not request for postponing
the hearing to another date. Then, I
made the second appeal to the Commission. On 9.2.12, Sri Jagadanad,
SIC heard the case
and instead of directing the
PIO to provide the information again remanded the case to the very same First appellate
Authority who had earlier
rejected my first appeal.
This is
nothing but a strategy of Sri
Jagadanand to protect the corrupt officials by strangulating the RTI
Act. It needs to be mentioned here that many Information Commissioners across India and High Courts and Supreme
Courts have already given judgments favouring the disclosure of property statement of
officers coming under the purview of
RTI Act.
Jayant Das
Complainant and Petitioner
M- 98617-70749
Date- 3.6.13
1. Defamation case against Sri Jagadanand, Odisha Information Commissioner filed
in SDJM Court, Bhubaneswar by
Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, wife of Jayant Das, an RTI-Complainant
On 4.6.13,
Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, my wife has
filed a defamation case against Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, State
Information Commissioner in
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital of Odisha with a
prayer to punish him
for using derogatory and defamatory languages
in his decision ( Second
Appeal case No.- 439/2011). In
her petition, Smt. Das has mentioned
that Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC has illegally
and without any rhyme or reason
reflected the unsavoury version of the
PIO about the complainant in the order issued by him in the capacity of State
Informationer Commissioner behalf. The
said unsavoury observation was that her
husband is involved in fraudulent
land deals with many persons including Sanat Mohapatra and was arrested in
criminal case. Mention of such highly personalized and derogatory remarks in
the decision issued by Mr.
Jagadanand is illegal, perverse and non-application of
judicial mind. Because, without hearing the case from the Complainant Sri Jayant Das , Sri Jagadanand SIC recorded the
incriminating statement of the erring
PIO and placed it as such in his order, knowing little that such an absolute
and unilateral reliance on the supposedly concocted and self defensive version
of the PIO did not come within the
domain of the Commission’s work. Sri Jagadanand
has passed the order with an oblique motive to malign
the image of her husband .
On 1.8.2011, her husband Sri Jayant Das had filed an RTI Application to the PIO, office of Health and Family Welfare
, Govt. of Odisha seeking information
about copy of property statement of Dr. Sanat Mohapatra. On refusal by the PIO, Sri Das approached the First Appellate Authority
who dismissed his appeal. Then Second appeal
S.A. No. 439/2011 was filed
before the Information Commission. Sri Jagadanand heard the case on 9.2.2012 and
remanded the case again to the
First Appellate Authority without
ensuring the supply of the requested information. But
Sri Jagadanand, in his
decision mentioned the
objectionable version of the PIO about Mr. Das, which has damaged the social dignity and
reputation of Mr. Das. This is one of many cases where Sri Jagadanand always reflected very acrimonious attitude to
the information-seekers and Complainants
during hearings in his chamber. This case will be heard very soon.
Thanks
Sri Jayant Das, Victim, Puri
Date- 5.6.13
9. RTI
Activist was abused and beaten up by Sarapanch
in office of Rajnagar Block of Kendrapara district, Odisha
Attack on RTI Activists and RTI users is
rising s day by day in Odisha. The
vested groups mainly contractors, Panchayat representatives, Govt. officials
are seen behind these attacks. The
common people and RTI Activists are getting frightened to seek
information relating to PDS, NREGA, India Awas Yojana etc. from the
block or Panchayat office on the pretext that it may cost their life from the people whose corruption and irregularities might be
exposed through their RTI Applications. Due to absence of any stringent law for
protection of whistleblowers in Odisha,
RTI Activists become victims
easily.
Generally,
when an RTI Activist was attacked, he filed an FIR in local police station or
lodged complaint to State Human Rights
Commission or State Information Commission. So far as our knowledge is
concerned, local police station does not take up this case rather threatens RTI Activist to
withdraw the case. Receiving complaints,
the SHRC sends the complaint to concerned Superintendent of Police and seeks compliance report within a fixed
time period and disposes it off. State
Information Commission sends the complaint to DG, Police or Home Secretary to
enquire into the matter. Nothing
happened. They simply provide a report prepared by SP of the concerned
district. The protection of RTI
Activists ends with submission of compliance report to Human Rights bodies like
SHRC and SIC.
On dt. 8.10.13,
Sri Jayant Parida, RTI Activist
of Kendrapara district was abused
and threatened not to come to get
information by Tapas Sahu, a
local Sarapanch, Head of Balisahipatna Gram Panchayat in
Rajanagar Block office, when he was inspecting the documents in the office as per the direction of State Information
Commission. Other two Govt. officials Sri
Batakrustan Behera, clerk and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pradhan, VAW who
protested the attack on Jayant Parida
were also beaten up and manhandled by the Sarapanch and his goons. Sri Sanja
Parida was seriously injured and
hospitalized immediately.
Sri Jayant
Das had submitted RTI Application seeking some information about PDS from the
office of Rajnagar Block. Finding no information, he had filed complaint to
Odisha Information Commission. His case
registered as SA -1777, 1778, 1887, 1912/12 was heard by the Commission
four times. On 4th hearing on 30.9.13, Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, Chief
Information Commissioner directed the BDO, Rajanagar to allow complainant Sri
Jayant Parida for inspection of the
documents. While inspecting the documents, the above mentioned incident
occurred. Sri Parida has filed an FIR in
Rajnagar Police station, Kendrapara and informed it to State Information
Commission on same day. The police has not taken any step against the culprit who is a renowned goonda and politically powerful.
Readers
may wait for follow up incidents.
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date- 14.10.13
10.PIL Case filed against Sri Jagadanand
Mohanty, former State Information Commissioner and his Wife on land scam in
Odisha High Court
It is
general view that prevails across the globe in the post-liberalization period
that “Land is precious one even more valuable than gold.” To grab or accumulate
that precious land legally or illegally is show of competition among the people
of various vested interest groups like corporate house, political people,
bureaucrats, media tycoons as well as NGO
in the state. These categories of people have tried their best using
their power, position, influence and money power to take the precious Govt.
land (land of the people who are the master of the country) by adopting unfair
practice. They have framed the laws/ Rules to justify their unfair and immoral
practice of grabbing the land in Bhubaneswar.
Among
these category of people, Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, Secretary, CYSD and former
State Information Commissioner is one who adopted all
foul means to take a GA Plot in name of his wife Smt. Manjushree Patnaik
in Bhubaneswar Municipal area.
Details of Chronology of his grabbing of GA Land
1. General Administration Department, Govt. of
Odisha decided to set up new colonies
in Ghatikia, Aiginia, Bharatpur , Sampur
as well as some other
localities within erstwhile Bhubaneswar
municipality and invited applications from intending purchasers
for allotment of residential
plots in new colonies.
2. Smt.
Manjushree Patnaik, wife of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty applied on 25.02.1989 by depositing the caution
money for allotment of residential plot
measuring size of 50’ x 75 ‘. The authorities basing on lottery
drawn result allotted plot no.58 in Mouza
Ghatikia in her
favour for residential
purpose with certain terms and conditions that the
installments shall be payble before completion of three years from the
date of execution of lease deed .
3.
Accordingly, a lease agreement was executed
between the general administration department and
Smt. Patnaik on 6th
July, 1992 with certain terms and
conditions basing upon the
declaration dated 04.07.1992.
4. After
execution of lease agreement, she
did not care to pay the
installments and after a long
lapse of time when the
authorities calculated the penalty
amount and requested her to
clear the dues
along with late fee, she on some
plea or the other avoided to pay the
installments from 1992 to 2010. But on 22.3.2010 she requested the
authorities to clarify the actual amount. During that time Sri
Jagadanand became the State Information Commissioner. Interestingly, he was
given responsibility of hearing all complaint cases filed against GA Dept. on the ground of denial of information. More
interesting is that Sri Jagadanand
continued to dispose and close all complaint cases relating to GA
Dept. simply directing to the PIO to
supply information and without imposing
penalty on defaulting PIO. Sri Jagadanand was least concerned whether
information supplied or not. In this
context, Sri Pradip Pradhan and Sri Biswajit Mohanty, two RTI Activists
had raised the issues of Jagadanand having unholy alliance with corrupt
bureaucracy during that time and
filed a number of complaints to Hon’ble
Governor, Odisha seeking enquiry into it which is pending for
action.
5. The authorities after
receiving the letter from
her illegally delivered possession in
her favour at the instance of her
husband, Sri Jagadanand who was then functioning as the State Information Commissioner who owns two
plots within Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation area prior to
delivery of possession of the
aforesaid land which is evident from
his property declaration
statement . The hand over and take over was executed on 02.6.2010.
Keeping in
view, the afore said illegality and irregularities, I submitted
a representation before the
General Administration department and the S.P. Vigilance and the Governor of Odisha requesting
to order an inquiry and for cancellation of the above said lease . The
secretariat of the Governor by letter dated 4.7.2013 sent the copy of the petition to the special secretary to govt. , General
Administration Department for needful action. But nothing happened. Sri
Jagadanand has used his position and
power and sold Civil Society for his personal benefit. If the allegation is
false, he or his coterie might have reacted in public domain countering our
allegation.
Now I have
filed a
Writ Petition i.e., W.P (C)(PIL) No. 26100
of 2013 case against Sri Jagadanand and his wife seeking an enquiry and cancel the G.A plot no.58 of Ghatikia area allotted in favour of
Smt. Patnaik and to direct to take appropriate legal action against them.
Sri Jayant
Kumar Das
Date-
9.12.13.
Governor, Odisha urged upon
by OSAA to constitute an enquiry into land scam of Tarun Kanti Mishra, Odisha
Chief Information Commissioner
Dear friends
On
24.12.13, a 5-Member Delegation of RTI Activists led
by Sri Tapan Padhi of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan submitted memorandum to Governor, Odisha urging upon him to constitute
an inquiry into land scam of
Tarun Kanti Mishra, Odisha Chief Information Commissioner under section 17 of the RTI Act.
The
Delegation team explained in details His Excellency by providing
all documentary proof obtained
through RTI about various plots
like GA plot, BDA Plot and CDA
plot taken by Sri TarunKanti Mishra during
his tenure in Odisha Govt. Sri Mishra
has misused his power , position and authority to grab Govt. land in his name
or in name of his wife. Sri
Mishra has always posed
as Mr. Clean which found
false through RTI. His Excellency hearing all the issues and going through all the documents assured the delegate to
order for inquiry into it. The Team also appraised the Governor
about inaction of State Govt.
about his order for enquiry
into land of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, former Information
Commissioner. It needs to be mentioned
here that three months back, Governor
acting on a compliant has ordered to Chief Secretary, Odisha to enquire into land illegally taken in name of his wife. The Team Members were Sti Jayant Das, Sankar Prasad Panigrahi , Sri
Bikram Swain and Sri Arun Swain.
Details of
land taken by Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra
A. He has taken
BDA residential plot which was
allotted in Phase-II of Badagada
area having plot area of 3979 sqft vide
letter No. 14628 dt. 7.8.89. The Plot was legally handed over to Sri Mishra on 24.8.1989. He had filed an affidavit in the court of
Shri D. Kanungo, ADM, Bhubaneswar on 26.11.87 that “ I, or my dependent children do
not own any residential/ commercial plot or house
within Bhubaneswar Master Plan
area on lease hold or free hold basis”.
B. In
1992, Sri Mishra has taken another Govt. plot i.e., GA plot in
Bharatpur mouza in the name of his wife Smt. Sunanda Mishra. Smt. Mishra had filed
an affidavit that she did not
have own any plot in Bhubaneswar
Municipal area. Earlier Smt. Mishra was allotted Plot No. 2 , area
measuring 50’ x 75’, Drawing No. B-367, Mz. Bharatpur in 1992. But later Sri Tarunkani Mishra who was
Special Secretary, Dept. of GA in 1992 played a manipulative role for
exchanging plot. Smt. Sunanda Mishra again applied to Dept of GA ( General Administration),
Govt. of Odisha seeking exchange of plot No. 2 to Plot No. 48 (C ) measuring 58’ x 75’ Drawing No. 8-367 on
the pretext of getting an additional
place adjoining to the
said plot which was kept
deliberately vacant for extension . It
needs to be mentioned here that the said corner plot was not allotted to anybody and kept vacant. It was
master-minded by Sri Tarunkanti Mishra when he was special secretary,
Department of General
Administration. Accordingly, the said
Plot No. 48 © was allotted in the name of Smt. Sunanda Mishra in 1999 when
Tarun Kanti Mishra was Development
Commissioner in 2009-10, His wife Smt.
Sunanda Mishra applied for extension of the plot to take up the corner place lying vacant. She was
allowed to take over it with payment of Rs. 40,496/- as extra cost for the corner plot. Sri Mishra
engineered the whole process.
C. Sri
Mishra has taken another plot in CDA (Cuttack Development Authority), Cuttack.
In his property statement filed to Govt. for the year 2011 (
hosted in website of Odisha Soochana Commission) , Sri Mishra under the Head “ Ownership of the property” has
mentioned by the GA plot and CDA
plot is owned by HUF (
Hindu Undivided Family). But GA plot is solely won by
his wife , while CDA plot is won by him. The word
“ HUF” written against ownership
of GA plot and CDA plot is
strategy to deceive or
confuse others/ readers. A reader generally cannot understand this
language or differentiate it.
D. It
needs to be mentioned here that Sri
Tarun Kani Mishra has ancestral
property Plot No-A/124, Saheed
Nagar, Bhubaneswar in the name of his
father prior to taking
GA, BDA, CDA plot.
E. Sri Mishra has Residential building in Lewis Road,
Bhubaneswar which his wife has received from her ancestral property.
Regards
Jayant
Das, RTI Activist
Core-Committee
Member
OSAA
Date -24.12.13
10. RTI
Activist falsely charged under section 452,323,506,294 of IPC was acquitted by
the Court in Bolangir district of Odisha
On
25.11.13, the Court of Additional Session Judge, Bolangir acquitted Sri
Kedarnath Nanda, RTI Activist who was falsely charged under section
452,323,506,294 of IPC. Sri Nanda had
submitted RTI Application on dated 11.11.2009 to the office of District Social
Welfare Officer, Bolangir seeking information about ICDS project, details of
interview conducted for appointment of M.P.W., referral service provided to the
children, activities of Supervisors etc. The RTI Application was transferred to
the PIO, office of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Bolangir Sadar to
provide the information. On 29.11.13, Sri Baikuntha Swain, Assistant Public
Information Officer called Sri Nanda to come to the office to give another copy
of RTI Application as it is not visible. On 30.11.13, Sri Nanda visited the
office of CDPO, Bolangir. When he
reached in the office, the CDPO started rebuking him using abusive language. So
he left the office. But when reached in
the office, he came to know that CDPO had lodged an FIR against him in local
police station. CDPO has stated in her
FIR that “Sri Nanda, RTI Applicant abused
her in obscene language saying “DARI BITANGI, MU TOTE DEKHINEBI”. He threw the
files and Registers, pulled the sarees and gave her a push.” The Town police registered FIR as case
No. 323/09 and investigated the matter.
In order to avoid arrest, Sri Nanda got
absconding and managed to get bail from the High Court. However, the Police
submitted charge sheet against Sri Nanda. The J.M.F.C., Bolangir in GR Case No. 836 of 2009 heard the case and framed charge under sections
294/452/323/506 of IPC and the
prosecution examined eight witnesses. Based on the evidence placed before the
trial court, it arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under section
452/323/506 IPC, but the prosecution
has been able to establish the charge under section 294 of the IPC
against the accused-Sri Nanda who was
convicted and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- , in default to undergo SI
for 15 days.
However,
Sri Nanda challenged the judgement of J.M.F.C.
in the court of Session Judge, Bolangir.
During cross-examination, the additional Session Judge found that the words like “RANDI BAZARI” was
not mentioned in her FIR, nor stated in her statement under section 161 Cr P C
before Inquiry Officer, to which she denied allegation. The court observed:
“ A mere
allegation of use of obscene words
without mentioning that the words
uttered and without contemplating that the same has resulted in the annoyance for the complainant, cannot
attract a charge under section 294 IPC”.
So, in
absence of evidence of annoyance, the court stated that the findings of the learned trial court for the offence under section 294 of the IPC
is not correct and is liable to be set aside.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-
11.1.14
11.
RTI
Activist was mercilessly beaten up and
hospitalised in Ganjam district, Odisha
On 19.2.2014,
Sri Sunil Mishra, RTI Applicant was
mercilessly beaten up at 1.30 PM in the
office of District Industries Centre, Berhampur of Ganjam district by
anti-socials in collusion with
officials. He lost his sense on the spot and
few people carried him to
M.K.C.G Hospital. He underwent treatment in hospital for 3 days and got
discharged on 23.2.14. As he is a patient of heart problem, his family
took him to Bangalore for proper
treatment. He has not been able to
talk till yet. Till
yet, no media has carried the news about this unfortunate incident. He filed
the FIR in local police station , Baidyanath Pur police station on 21.2.14. The
police is yet to start the enquiry.
Sri Sunil Mishra is a social activist and got associated
with Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan ( a civil society forum
spearheading campaign for effective
implementation of RTI Act in the state)
since 2010. He has used RTI extensively
to expose corrupt and malpractice
in different Govt. offices of Ganjam district. On 6.2.14, he had submitted RTI Application
to the PIO, office of District Industries Centre ( DIC) , near Industrial area Berhampur. The information sought for
relates to irregularities, corruption and malpractice done by General Manager,
DIC. It needs to be mentioned here
that the T. Badrinarayan, General
Manager, DIC has indirectly threatened
him several times not to submit RTI
to his office.
Details of incident
On
19.2.14, Sri Sunila Mishra (
M-09437217142) had gone to the office of District Industries Centre,
Berhampur to hand over a petition to the Secretary, Dept. Of Industries, Govt. of Odisha alleging
corruption against the General
Manager, DIC in a Loan Mela
organised in the conference Hall of DIC. While he was sitting
in the Hall, A drunkard
Abhaya Sahu suddenly attacked
him using slang langauge i.e, you bastard why you are using RTI
against our General Manager ............
and started beating him before
the audience in the Hall. As it was
pre-planned attack, other three dreaded criminals like Panchanan Choudhury,
Sukuta Patra, Rajendra Patra joined with him and started mercilessly beating
him. He lost his sense. As they were known criminals, nobody did come forward
to protect Sunil Mishra. However, after they left the place, some people took
him to hospital for treatement. It
needs to be mentioned here that Sri T.
Badrinarayan, General Manager is having unholy alliance with these hooligans which has been reflected in the FIR filed by Sri Mishra.
Tomorrow
on 24.2.14, we are planning to file a complaint petition to Odisha Human Rights
Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking immediate intervention to
make an enquiry and take steps to arrest the culprits. We have also
decided to meet DG, Police to take appropriate legal action against
the miscreants. Since last 8 years,
around 30 RTI Activists in Odisha
have been victimised
due to their desperate
move to expose corruption and malpractice in Govt.
offices by using RTI Act.
Pradip Pradhan
RTI Activist
M-9937843482
Date-23.2.14
12.
RTI
Activist was mercilessly beaten up in
the office premises of Deogaon Block under Bolangir district, Odisha
On 1.3.14,
Mangal Ray, a Dalit RTI Activist working
in Bolangir district had visited Deogaon
Block to submit RTI Application seeking
information about details of road construction work undertaken from Jarasingha RD road to Udar RD
road under NREGA in 2012-13, estimate
copy, details of expenditure including
copy of bill and vouchures etc. When
he was filing RTI application to the PIO, the Junior Engineer
of the Block along with some hooligans and contractors entered into the office
and asked him purpose of his visit. Then they started beating him mercilessly
with blow and fist and forced him to withdraw the application. The officials
present in the office neither protested nor came to his rescue. The hooligans
also used slang language taking name of his caste and threatened him to leave
the office. His RTI Application was tore up into pieces. Sri Mangal left the office. He was so
frightened that he could not file FIR.
After
getting assurance of protection from fellow RTI Activists, he dared to file an
FIR in Deogaon police station on 12.3.14. Mangal is the fourth victim in
Bolangir, Earlier, in 2009, Sri Gopabandhu Chhatria who had
submitted RTI application to the Deogaon Block to expose corruption in a check dam
construction work was beaten up and false case was filed against him
for which he was put behind bar for four days. Later on the court
acquitted him.
Similarly,
Sri Nilamani Joshi who have been fighting since 2009 to expose corruption in
purchase of paddy in Bolangir and nexus of mill-owners, officials of Anchalik
co-operative societies and District Civil
office have been several times attacked, threatened and pushed from
running train.
Another
RTI Activist Sri Kedar Nanda was false
implicated with rape case in 2010 and charged
under section 452,323,506,294 of IPC
when he had visited CDPO office, Bolangir to get information about functioning of Anganwadi centres. CDPO has stated in her FIR that “Sri Nanda, RTI Applicant abused her in
obscene language saying “DARI BITANGI, MU TOTE DEKHINEBI”. He threw the files
and Registers, pulled the sarees and gave her a push.” He got
the advance bail from High Court and fought the legal battle for three years.
The Additional Session Judge acquitted him
from this false case.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date-
13.3.14
13. Legal Battle of
RTI Activists against State Machinery/ Odisha Information Commission for effective implementation of RTI Act in
Odisha From 2005 to 2014
RTI Activists in Odisha have not only led awareness campaign to sensitise masses
about the Act, procedure to be
followed for inspection of
documents proactively disclosed under
section 4(1b) of the RTI Act and to access information through filling
application, filling complaints to
Information Commission but also unleashed
legal battle approaching
various judicial bodies including Odisha
High Court against callous and indifferent attitude of State bureaucracy and
illegal, anti-people activities
of Odisha Information Commission for
effective implementation of RTI Act in the state. Through their ceaseless
struggle and overzealous activism, They have
exposed conspiracy hatched by Odisha Govt. and Information Commission to
dilute the RTI Act in Odisha. The efforts of
RTI Activists has not been confined to just seeking information but using it
at different level to improve the
governance of the state. I do
present herewith the glimpses of
our legal battle against
the State Govt. and Information
Commission for RTI Act
in the state.
|
Sl.No |
Cases in different court with Case No |
Name
of Petitioner |
Subject
Matter of Case |
Status
|
|
1 |
Defamation
case filed in Senior Division, Civil Court,
Bhubaneswar in October, 2010 |
Odisha
Information Commission, Bhubaneswar |
Odisha
Information Commission ( Sri
D.N. Padhi, former Chief Information Commissioner and Sri Jagadanand Mohanty,
former Information Commissioner)
as an Institution has filed defamation case against two RTI Activists Sri Pradip Pradhan and Sri Chitta Behera
in October 2010 seeking permanent injection on their writing against Commission and Rs. 1 lakh damage suit. Both the RTI
Activists in their writings have
vociferously criticised the illegal activities of the Commission which is alleged by the Commission duo as tarnishing their image and social
dignity. |
Case is
pending in the Court of First Class
Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital city of Odisha, |
|
2 |
Defamation
case against Sri Jagadanand as
Odisha Information Commissioner
filed in SDJM Court,
Bhubaneswar on 5.6.13 |
Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, wife of Jayant Das, an
RTI-Complainant, Puri |
On
5.6.13, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, has
filed a defamation case against Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, State
Information Commissioner in
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital of Odisha with
a prayer to punish him
for using derogatory and defamatory languages
in his decision ( Second
Appeal case No.- 439/2011). In
her petition, Smt. Das has mentioned
that Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC has illegally and
without any rhyme or reason reflected
the unsavoury version of the PIO about the complainant in the order
issued by him in the capacity of State Information Commissioner. |
The case
is pending in the court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar, capital city of Odisha. |
|
3 |
W.P (C)(PIL) No.
26100 of 2013 case
against Sri Jagadanand and his wife
seeking an enquiry and cancel the G.A plot no.58 of Ghatikia area allotted in favour of
Smt. Patnaik and to direct to take appropriate legal action against them. |
Sri
Jayant Kumar Das , RTI Activist, Puri |
In spite
of having own land under Bhubaneswar Muncipality area in 1989,
Sri Jagadanand Mohanty , State Information Commissioner ( now retired and Member Secretary, CYSD) manipulated Govt. procedure and
illegally took GA Plot in the name of his wife Smt. Manjushree Patnaik which was exposed by Sri Jayant Das, RTI
Activist in 2012. With this
information he filed complaint to
Governor, Odisha on 29.12.12 seeking
inquiry into the matter. Though Governor ordered for inquiry, the Govt. is
sitting idle on the file and
yet to initiate legal proceeding against Sri Jagadanand Mohanty. Finding no response
despite submission of number of
RTI Applications, he had filed a writ
petition in Odisha High Court
seeking direction for inquiry
into the matter and take stringent
legal action against Sri Jagadanand.
In 2011, Sri Jagadanand using
his position as Information Commissioner and influencing officials of GA
Dept. has taken the GA plot by depositing the required money
after 20 years of allotment of land made
in 1992. |
Case is pending in High Court. |
|
4 |
Writ
Petition W.P. C. No- 12468/2013 filed in Odisha High Court challenging the
decision of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, the then Information Commissioner. |
by
Jayant Das, RTI-Complainant |
On
dated 30.5.13, Sri Jayant Das had filed a writ petition in odisha High
Court seeking direction to Sri Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner to
expunge the derogatory and defamatory remarks used in the decision against him and to remove the judgment from their
official website and further direct the
Commission to provide
accurate information as sought for
free of cost and also to pay the requisite compensation to him. That,
while deciding a Second Appeal case
No. 439/2011 on 9.2.2012, Sri
Jagadanand remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority, Dept. of
Health and Family Welfare , Govt. of
Odisha and wrote the objectionable and illegal remarks of the PIO
( the petitioner is involved in fraudulent land deal with many
persons including Sanat Mohapatra and
was arrested in a Criminal case). This sentence is illegal, perverse and
non-application of judicial mind. He
had also alleged in his petition that Sri Jagadanand, SIC lacked
minimum knowledge about RTI Act .
Without hearing from the
petitioner, how Sri Jagadanand recorded
the statement of the PIO
and reflected on the order sheet which does not come
within the domain of the Commission. |
On
10.12.13, the High Court said that the observation has no relevance to the decision on the application for
giving information and directed the
Commission to delete the same from
the decision. |
|
5 |
PIL Case
on RTI filed in Orissa Court seeking court direction for effective
implementation of Section-4 of RTI
Act. |
Sanjib Satapathy , RTI Activist,
Bhawanipatna , Kalahandi |
This PIL
case has been filed by Mr. Sanjeeb
Satapathy, Social Activist of
Kalahandi district. Mr. satapathy has been spearheading RTI campaign in
remote pockets of Kalahandi
district since last three years. He has sought direction from the Court to both Central and State Govt. to implement section -4 of RTI Act in letter and spirit. He
has alleged in his petition that the
state Govt. continues to be callous
and indifferent to implement section 4
(1b) of the RTI Act. |
On 16.12.10, hearing
the case, Odisha High Court
had issued notice to
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Govt. of
India, Department of Information and
Public Relation, Govt. of Orissa, Orissa Information Commission seeking
reply within two weeks “
why suo moto disclosure of 17 types of information under section-4 of RTI Act has not been implemented in the state”.
The
case is pending. |
|
6 |
Writ
Petition ( W.P.C. No- 4797/2013)
filed in Odisha High Court on 27.2.13 |
Kunja
Bihari Patra , RTI Activist, Dasapalla, Nayagarh |
Sri Kunja Bihari Patra, BPL RTI Applicant is using RTI extensively to expose corruption in Govt. offices.
Having been deprived of getting any
benefit under RTI Act, he has
approached Odisha High Court seeking direction to provide information to the BPL Applicant free of cost. He had challenged the direction of the Commission for giving instruction to Sri Kunja to pay
fees for information which is the
violation of section 7 (5) of the RTI Act. |
On
2.7.13, while adjudicating the case, the High Court quashed the order of
Information Commission and directed the Public authorities to supply the information free of cost as
per provision of section 7(5) of the RTI Act. The Information Commission’s
anti-BPL mindset and ignorance of law
was exposed. This is a big victory of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan. |
|
7 |
W. P. (C)
No.10848/2012 filed
in Odisha against gross miuse
of power and misappropriating Rs. 3.25
crore for awareness campaign on RTI in
Odisha by Odisha Information
Commission . |
Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist,
Bhubaneswar |
Sri Pradhan in
his writ petition has
alleged that the State Govt. has completely abdicated its power and function
in favour of the Commission and the Commission has been indulging itself in
activities in the name and style of Information, Education and Communication
(IEC), beyond the scope and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged
that such kind of activities carried on by the Commission since its inception
till date has resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the
tune of more than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a
thorough probe and recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
|
Hearing
the case on 18.7.12, the Odisha High Court has issued
notices of show-cause to the Chief
Secretary, Secretaries of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination
Deptt., Finance Deptt., Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief
Information Commissioner, Information commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan. |
|
8 |
Writ
Petition filed in Odisha High Court against
Sri Jagadanand Mohanty , Information Commissioner |
Biswa
Kalyan Mohanty , Chandabali, Bhadrak |
On
22.1.13, Sri Biswa Keshari Mohanty, Chandbali of Bhadrak
district, Odisha has filed a writ petition in Odisha
High Court challenging the failure of Mr. Jagadanand,
Odisha Information Commissioner in redressing
his Complaint against the concerned public authority as per provision of RTI
Act and Governor, Odisha in enquiring into and taking appropriate
action on his Complaint against the Orissa Information Commissioner .
Sri Mohanty has prayed to
the Hon’ble High Court to direct to recover the penalty from the
erring officials and issue a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other
suitable writ directing Governor to take appropriate legal
action against Sri Jagadanand, SIC as per law and remove
him from his office within a stipulated period. |
Case is pending against Sri Jagadanand Mohanty |
|
8 |
writ
petition W.P (C) No. 10207 /2013 filed
in Odisha High Court against
Sri Jagadanand, Information
Commissioner ( retired now) on 2.5.13 |
Karunakar
Behera, retired Govt. official,
Baripada, Mayurbhanj |
On
2.5.13, Sri Karunakar Behera, a petitioner of Mayurbhanj district has filed a
writ petition W.P (C) No. 10207 /2013 in Odisha High Court challenging
the decision of the decision of
Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner who with malafide intention disposed
and closed the case without
providing information on 4.1.13.
The Petitioner Sri Behera has
appealed the court to quash the order dated 04.01.2013 and has
prayed for a direction to the
PIO, office of CDMO, Mayurbhanj to
provide the required information
and direct the Information
Commission to take action deemed proper
against the concerned Public Information Officer within a stipulated period . The Petitioner has also prayed for removal
of Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty from the post of Odisha Information on the ground
of inefficiency and incapacity. |
Case
is pending |
|
9 |
WPC No.
13/2014 on 2.1.14 filed in Odisha High Court seeking direction for withdrawal of provision
of submission of proof of citizenship identity which is required at the time of submitting RTI Application
under Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 |
Pradip
Pradhan, RTI Applicant, Bhubaneswar |
Under Odisha RTI Rules, 2005, there is provision of submission of proof of
identity of citizenship at the
time of submitting RTI
Application which is against section 6 (1) of the RTI Act. Sri Pradhan has challenged in his petition
the Odisha RTI Rules as illegal and ultravires . |
The case
has been heard and pending in the
court. |
|
10 |
WPC ( PIL) Case 2153/14 filed
in Odisha High Court on large scale misuse of bulk kerosene distributed to few institutions under PDS. |
Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist, Odisha |
In
Odisha, few Govt. and Private organisations like office of Tahasil, Police
stations, SP office, Ashram schools are
being provided bulk kerosene starting from 30 litres to 200 litres of
kerosene at BPL price under PDS since 1980s. The State Govt. has not made review “whether
the bulk kerosene is required for
these institutions” since inception. It is exposed through RTI and fact-finding visits that the
bulk keresone is hugely misused
by the Civil Supply officers,
the authority of the institutions
and black-marketed to truck, tractor owners. With this information, Sri Pradhan
has filed the case in High
Court seeking direction to check corruption and black marketing of bulk
keresone. |
Case
is pending. |
|
11 |
Writ
Petition filed in January, 2014 in
Odisha High seeking direction to State Govt. to undertake social audit of
PDS, ICDS, MDM programme as per
direction of Supreme Court. |
Pradip
Pradhan, RTI Activist, Odisha |
On
31.8.13, RTI Application was
submitted to Dept. of Food
Supply and Consumer Welfare, School and Mass Education, Women and Child
Development, Govt. of Odisha seekinf
information about social audit
conducted on PDS, MDM, ICDS as per direction of SC
in 2002. The information
supplied by PIOs of all 3 Dept. that
no social audit has been conducted so
far by Govt. With this information,
Sri Pradhan had approached High Court seeking
direction to State Govt. to
comply SC Order. |
Case
is pending. |
|
12 |
PIL
case {W.P. (C)(PIL) No. 10537 of 2013} filed on 2.5.13
seeking direction to State
Govt. to vacate the quarters illegally occupied by
retired officers, former MLAs, Ministers etc. |
Pradip
Pradhan, RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar |
In the month of February,2013, three RTI Applications were
submitted to the PIO, Dept. of GA,
Govt. of Odisha seeking information
about details of Govt. quarters
unauthorisedly occupied by retired
Govt. employees and former MLAs/MPs, house rent arrear pending against
the retired IAS, IFS, IPS
officers and former Ministers/MPs/MLAs
etc. It was found from the
information supplied by the Department of General Administration that total number of 400 Govt. quarters have
been unauthorizedly occupied by retired Govt. employees. With this information, Sri Pradhan
approached Odisha High Court seeking direction to vacate the quarters. |
On 11.12.13, High Court has issued notice to state Govt. produce
the report within 4 weeks about status
of quarters in Bhubaneswar. |
|
13 |
{ W.P. (
Civil ) No. 19857 of 2013 filed in Odisha High Court seeking
direction to Odisha
Information Commission to provide copy of the decision of cases in Odia language on 12.8.13. |
Sri Nilamani Joshi, RTI Activist of Bolangir and
Core-body Member of Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan |
Since
2006, RTI Activists of Odisha have been demanding in form of organising rally, Dharana and
demonstration before State Govt.
and Odisha Information
Commission to make
all proactively disclosed
information under section 4 (1b) and
decision of the Commission in
vernacular language (Odia). Finding no response from Govt.. RTI Activists decided to resort legal means
to get the copy of the decision of their cases in Odia language from the Commission. Accordingly, referring a English-written
decision (Second Appeal No. 773/2013)
disposed by Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra , State Chief Information Commissioner in which
the appellant has sought the
copy of the decision in Odia, Sri Nilamani Joshi filed a writ petition in the
High Court |
On
21.3.14, Hearing the case, Odisha High Court
issued direction to Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Govt. of
Odisha, Information and Public
Relation Department, Bhubaneswar to
take a decision within a period of two
months about desirability and necessity of providing to the
complainant-citizens Odia
Copies of the decisions rendered
in English language by Odisha Information Commission. |
|
14 |
WP (C )
No. 635/14 filed
in Odisha High Court seeking withdrawal of compulsory RTI Application under Odisha RTI Rules 2005.
|
Muhammad Imran , Social Activist,
Bhubaneswar |
Sri Imran in his petition has mentioned that RTI Act
in its section 6(1) has not
prescribed any application form for
citizens seeking information.
Complying this provision, the Central Govt. has not prescribed any application form for citizens . The option has been left to
the citizens to submit plain application or any format whichever is liked by them
for seeking information. But under Odisha RTI Rules, the State Govt. has prescribed
a compulsory application
form which the common people can not fill it up. He has prayed the court
to direct the State Govt. to withdraw the
compulsory application form
which is not citizen-friendly. |
Case is pending. |
|
15
|
Writ
Petition ( C ) No. 6130/2014 on 24.3. 14 challenging the unilateral disposal of the cases without hearing by
the State Information Commission |
Pradip
Pradhan, RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar |
In 2012,
there was a Supreme Court
Judgement in Civil Appeal No.
10787-10788 of 2011 in which single bench
has given a direction that the Commission can not direct
for supply of information under section 18 of the RTI Act. This
direction has been challenged
in the Supreme Court which is
pending. Taking cue from this judgement, the Odisha
Information Commission started
rejecting all complaint
cases without hearing citing
the abovementioned case of SC
in their decision. Now the
Commission has rejected around 1200
cases without hearing. The
complainants are seen
harassed and frustrated . The unilateral rejection of cases without hearing and providing no
information by the Commission has been
challenged by Sri Pradhan in the High
Court. |
Case
is pending. |
|
16 |
Writ Petition (PIL) No.- 5103/2014 filed in High Court seeking direction to State Govt. to ensure
constructed building to all Anganwadi centres in the state. |
Pradip Pradhan, RTI Activist, Bhubaneswar |
RTI Application on dt.
19.10.13 was submitted
to the Dept. of Women and Child
Development, Govt. of Odisha
seeking information about status of
AWCs with own building , fund sanctioned for building,
its utilization etc.
The PIO on dt. 1.11.13 has
supplied the information that 74 % of Anganwadi Centres do not have own
building. Out of 600 crores
sanctioned for AWC building, only 150 crores have been
utilized since last three years. With
this information, Sri Pradhan has filed the case in High Court. |
Case
is pending. |
|
17 |
WP
(C) No. 23903/2012 |
Sri
Jayant Das, RTI Activist, Puri |
On
8.4.2010, As they were involved in private practice and running private clinic, the
State Govt. transferred 153
doctors to different districts . 90% of doctors did not join and went on leave. which was exposed through RTI
by Sri Jayant Das . For example,
26 Doctors were transferred in
Bhadrak district out of which 25
did not move. So Sri das filed
the case in High Court seeking
direction to State Govt. to take
immediate steps to execute transfer order. |
On 11.
12. 12 , the court has issued
notice. Govt. ha s not compiled it till yet. |
|
18 |
Vigilance case filed against
Manjushree Patnaik, wife of Sri Jagadanand Mohanty for
illegally taking GA plot in
Ghatikia area of Bhubaneswar on
30.7.13 |
Jayant
Das, RTI Activist, Puri |
He has
alleged that Srimati Manjushree Patnaik, wife of Jagadananda Mohanty, of
Village-Motarin Dist- Puri had taken a
GA plot No. 58 of Ghatikia Area, Bhubaneswar on 23.4.1992 under the Allotment
scheme of Residential Plot in New colonies within Bhubaneswar municipality
Area, 1989. As per Government decision,
a person having plot within jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar Municipal area cannot be entitled to get
the GA Plot but, in this case the leaseholder’s husband (information commissioner Sri
husband (information commissioner Sri Jagadananda Mohanty) is the owner of a
homestead land with an area 24OO square feet is situated in Mouza: Gobinda
Prasad, Tahasil Bhubaneswar, P.S: New Gapital, District Khurda and the Plot number is 11491237q Khata No. {05712476 and one building
was constructed on the
said land(this homestead land was purchased on 15.2.1989). |
Vigilance
has started inquiry and ceased some important document from GA Dept. in this
connection. |
Pradip
Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date-
20.4.14
14. Odisha High Court
issued notice to State Govt. and Odisha Information Commission on Appeal
petition filed seeking withdrawal of
illegal Compulsory Application Form-A
framed under Odisha RTI Rules,
2005
On
31.7.14, the Odisha High issued notice to State Govt. (represented through
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Dept. of I and PR) and Odisha Information Commission to reply
within 0ne month on Writ Petition No.
635/14 filed by Sri MD. Imran, RTI
Activist ( M-9438747320) challenging
illegal Compulsory Application Form ”A”
framed under Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 contradicting section 6 (1) of the
RTI Act. The petitioner has prayed the
court seeking direction of the withdrawal of the Compulsory Form and entertain
the applications for information without insisting any particular form. Sri
Sidharth Das, Advocate, Odisha High Court is pleading the case on behalf of the
petitioner.
Section 6
(1) of the RTI Act says “ A person, who
desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in
writing or through electronic means in
English or Hindi or in the official language of the area
in which the application is being made, accompanying sch fee as may be
prescribed”. It means, an information -seeker shall make a plain application of
request to the PIO of any Public Authority to get information. Following the letter and spirit of the Act,
the Central Govt. has not prescribed any application form for citizens to apply
for information. Rather the option has been left to the citizens to submit in
any form or format to get the information.
But
violating the Act, the State Govt. in
its Rules 4 (1) of Odisha RTI Rules,
2005 has made a provision that “ A
Citizen desirous of any information may apply
for information in form A to the public information officer, with the
required fee in shape of Treasury
challan or cash as specified in the
schedule under the appropriate head of account”.
Since
2005, RTI Activists, Civil Society Organisations and Odisha Soochana Adhikar
Abhijan (OSAA) have been demanding
withdrawal of this Compulsory RTI
Application Form and illegal Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 through series of action programme like demonstration, dharana before assembly,
submission of memorandum to Chief
Minister, Governor, Chief Secretaries etc. Despite it, the State Govt. has not
taken a single steps to withdraw the ultravires
of the provision of the Odisha
RTI Rules.
We are
quite hopeful that the intervention of the High Court will bring a lot of
changes in RTI regime and enforce transparency and accountability in the state
administration.
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date -1.8.14
15. First
ever successful use of RTI led to arrest of a corrupt IAS officer in Odisha
RTI Act
mandates not only to enforce transparency and accountability in the
administration but also to contain corruption in the administrative system of
the country (Preamble of the Right to Information Act). Since 2005, the Act
has been used as powerful tool by RTI Activists across the country to fight out
corruption and irregularities in the functioning of administration. Successful
use of RTI to check corruption and to put the corrupt officer behind the bar
that too an IAS officer proved once again the mighty of the RTI Act. On
7.11.14, Debaraj Mishra, IAS former Collector, Bolangir working as addl.
Secretary in Home Department, Govt. of Odisha was arrested on charges of
corruption and irregularities in the examination conducted in 2012 for the post
of Amin, Revenue Inspector ad A.R.I.in Bolagir which was exposed through RTI by
few applicants who could not get the job due to this malpractice. It was
alleged that Sri Mishra was the mastermind behind the whole corruption and Rs.
5 to 6 crores has been amassed by him and his coterie.
Sequence of the events led to arrest of Debaraj Mishra
A.In 2009,
an advertisement was made by the district administration for appointment to the
54 post of Revenue Inspector/Assistant Revenue Inspector and Amin. Around 1400
applicants had applied for these posts. Accordingly written examination was
held in June 2011 and candidates selected and got appointed in 2012. But it was
alleged that answer-sheet was manipulated and ineligible candidates were
selected by taking bribe of Rs. 4 to 6 lakhs for each candidate.
B.The
manipulation of answer sheet and corruption in selection procedure was exposed through RTI by the
Information-seekers in 2013.
C. In
2013, there was allegation of huge scam worth 6 crores of rupees in recruitment
in the post of Revenue Inspector/ Assistant Revenue Inspector in Bolangir by various quarters like Bolangir Citizens’
Committee, Bolangir press, Common people of Bolangir , applicants for these posts etc.
They had submitted series of petitions to Sri Surya Narayan Patra,
Minister, Revenue and Disaster Management, Dr. Taradatt, Additional Chief
Secretary to Govt. seeking an enquiry into the matter and demanded action in
this regard.
D. The
issue took momentum when Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan had organised a press meet on 14.3.14 in Bhubaneswar bringing
to the limelight about all the information relating to this scam
obtained through RTI. Mass Media mainly electronics media took up the
issue and highlighted the details of corruption exposed through RTI.
E. To
pursue this issue, RTI Application was
submitted by Pradip Pradhan on 24.3.14 to the PIO, Dept. of revenue and
Disaster Management, Govt. of Odisha and to the PIO, office of RDC, Sambalpur
on 16.3.14 seeking information about copy of petitions filed and action taken,
if any in respect of allegations made by the people of Bolangir. On 25.4.14, the PIO has supplied the
information that though several directions
have been given to Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur since
August, 2013, he has not made an
enquiry into it rather continues
to ignore it. The details of
information supplied by the PIO, Dept. of R&DM are as follows.
·
On 2.8.13, during visit to Bolangir,
Sri Surya Narayan Patra, Minister for Revenue and Disaster management received
the complaint of huge corruption from press and Bolangir Citizens Committee in
the appointment of R.I./A.R.I. by the
district administration with involvement of one clerck Sri Niranjan Tripathy.
After returning from Bolangir, Sri Patra directed to Dr. Taradatt to enquire
into the matter by RDC, Sambalpur and submit the report within 30 days.
·
On 6.8.13 ( letter No. 29990/R&DM)
, Dr. Taradatt, Additional Chief Secretary issued direction to RDC,
Sambalpur to enquire into the
matter and furnish the report along with
suggestions for further action.
·
On 21.9.13, Dr. Taradatt ordered to
RDC, Sambalpur for an enquiry into this corruption and take appropriate
action.
·
On 7.10.13, Dr. Taradatt
( letter no. 38553) gave order to
RDC, Sambalpur for enquiry
into it followinga petition
submitted by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sandh and others on 30.9.13.
·
On 20.4.14, Dr. Taradatt ordered to RDC, Sambalpur for fifth time to enquiry
into allegation of corruption in the recruitment of R.I. in Bolangir. It is
presumed that this direction came after press meet organised in Bhubaneswar by
OSAA to expose the corruption with fact and figures obtained through RTI.
F. However, after media expose, RDC, Sambalpur submitted his
inquiry report to the State Govt. in the month of April or May, 2014. But
nothing happened on his report.
G. RTI Application was again submitted to the PIO, office of
Revenue and Disaster management on 26.7.14 seeking action taken report on the
RDC inquiry report and copy of the report. The PIO refused to provide the
information as the investigation was going on.
H. A TV Channel continues broadcasting the news and follow-up news
by taking copy of the RTI reply and highlighted how the Govt. conspires to
cover up the corruption ad protect Debaraj Mishra.
I.After
news expose, the Govt. handed over this case to State Vigilance ad Crime branch
to enquire into the matter.
J. Finally after long fight and persuasion, Sri Debaraj Mishra and
other officials were arrested by State Vigilance on 7.11.14. The investigation
is still going on.
But the
moot question is how the deprived applicants will get justice. Whether the exam
will be cancelled and re-exam held or
the exam paper scrutinised again and the
eligible candidate will get the post. Another bigger fight is ahead before RTI
activist in future.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 9.11.14
16. Memorandum submitted to Chief Secretary,
Odisha for protection of RTI Activists
in the state
Bhubaneswar,
22.1.15 A team of Human Rights
Defenders Sri Pradip Pradhan, state Convener, Odisha
Soohana Adhikar Abhijan, Sri Pradipta Nayak, Member, HRD Alert, Sri Chandranath
Dani and Sri Akhand, Huma Rights
Activists met Chief
Secretary, Odisha and submitted
memorandum urging him e urging him to take steps
for opening a special desk in
the office of DG, Police to independently
investigate into allegation of murder or attack on RTI
Activists and provide them protection along with amending Odisha RTI Rules, 2005.
It needs
to be mentioned here that on 29.12.14, Sri Ganesh Chandra Panda, RTI Activist of Berhampur, district headquarters of Ganjam district was
severely attacked by some miscreants from backside and died on the spot, while he was on his morning walk, a few
meters away from his house. To ascertain the facts and circumstances led to
murder of Sri Panda, a fact-finding team had visited to Berhampur and conducted
the spot inquiry into the murder and found that use of RTI to expose corruption
was the reason behind the murder of Sri Ganesh handra Panda. The Team met
Inspector I-Charge, Golanthara Police Station, Addl. SP and urged upon
them to arrest the culprits behind the arrest.
But the team came across a lot of issues involved in respect of murder
of RTI Activist and attack on RTI users in the state.
Today, the delegation met the Chief Secretary and requested
him for high-level inquiry into
the circumstances leading to murder of RTI Activist Sri Ganesh Chandra
Panda, open a Desk in the office of
Director General of Police especially for RTI and Human Rights Activists to
receive the complaints of attacks and threats against them and to take prompt
action against the accused.
The Chief Secretary was also appraised about
Anti-people provision of Odisha
RTI Rules 2005 urged him for withdrawal of compulsory provision for submission of proof of citizenship at the
time of filing RTI Applications and also for abolishing the compulsory
provision for using the Form-A that requires inter alia disclosure of several
personal details like permanent address and name of father/spouse and provide
adequate financial support for survival of the family members of Gaesh Ch.
Panda, who attained martyrdom in course of his crusade against corruption
through the use of RTI.
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date-22.1.15
18.NHRC sought Action Taken Report from SP, Nayagarh on complaint
of “Merciless Attack on Physically Handicapped RTI Activist by Hooligans and
subsequent Hospitalisation in Odisha”
On
23.11.15, National Human Rights Commission has given direction for enquiry and
sought Action Taken Report within
four weeks from SP, Nayagarh into
alleged Merciless Attack on Keshab Mahakud, Physically Handicapped RTI Activist
of Nayagarh district by Hooligans and
subsequent Hospitalisation in Odisha and police inaction despite FIR being
lodged several times ( Copy is attached) . The
Complaint dated 4.10.15 was filed by Pradip Pradhan, State Convener,
Odisha Soohana Adhikar Abhijan to NHRC seeking Direction to the State Govt. to make Crime Branch enquiry
into it and take stringent action against the criminals, politicians and police
officers involved in it and to reimburse the bill
paid by him for treatment, award
Rs. 10 lakh compensation as
he was made cent percent physically invalid due to this attack. and DG, Police to ensure of registration of all FIRs filed
by Sri Mahakud in different police
stations, conduct enquiry into it and take
action accordingly.
Sri Keshab Mahakud, a middle-aged, physically handicapped man ( one limb is lost
) belonging to Kashikiari village
in Nayagarh district
of Odisha has been using RTI to exercise his right to access the
information under RTI Act and expose
corruption ad irregularities
in implementation of Govt. work.
He fell a victim of
conspiracy by a nexus of
unscrupulous politicians, corrupt officials of police and administration at
district level and anti-social elements,
for his constant
endeavour to use RTI to expose their
illegal and ant-people activities.
On 22.9.15, on his way to Bus
stand, a gang of 6 hooligans (
Baru Parida, Kahnei Nayak, Nibasi Parida, Nalu Parida, Bharat Nayak, Ashok
Nayak ) attacked
him and mercilessly hit him with lethal weapons including an iron rod
damaging his two legs and one hand
permanently. All the crucial documents such as his voter ID card and BPL Card
were snatched away by the miscreants. As a result of multiple bruises and
profuse bleeding caused by this sudden but pre-meditated attack, Sri Mahakud
fell unconscious and the goons abandoned him on the spot. However, after
getting telephone call from some unknown source, the police staff of Mahipur
Police Outpost rescued him and sent him to Nayagarh Hospital for treatment, where from he was
again transferred to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and finally from there
to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Though his son Kuber Mahakud has filed an FIR in Nuagaon Police station of Nayagarh district, the police is yet to nab the culprits.
On 29th
Sept. 2015, a team of RTI Activists had
met him
to get the information about details of the issues which led to occurrence of such incident
and merciless attack o him. While narrating his tale of story,
involvement and conspiracy of police and powerful political people, he said
that he had filed RTI Application on
14.12.14 to the PIO, office of DFO,
Wildlife, Nayagarh seeking information
about total number of deer in Kuanria Deer Park, Dasapalla and total
expenditure made for maintenance of the Park etc. On 1.1.2015,
on the occasion of observation of
New Year Day, a feast with deer meat was organised
at Forest Bungalow near Kuanria Dam
in Dasapalla in the presence of Sri Arun sahu,
Minister of State for Law, Govt. of Odisha, Sri L.N. Behera
DFO Wildlife, Sri P.K. Mandhata ACF, Sri Rabi Kar Ranger and some others. The Deer used for the feast was brought from the nearest Kuanria Deer Park. Sri Keshab Mahakund was called by the Ranger
to that Forest Bugalow for a discussion about the information to be supplied to
him. After reaching there, he noticed two forest guards preparing the deer
meat to be served to the invitees. He
took a photograph of it and ran away.
However, a forest guard had
noticed it. He informed to the Ranger about it. Sri Rabi Kar, Ranger
immediately rushed to capture Sri Keshab Mahakud and nabbed him at Sariganda village. He took away the mobile
phone of Keshab and severely beat him up. As he is a physically handicapped
person, he could not resist him.
However, on the same day, Keshab sought to file an FIR in Dasapalla
Police Station. As the police did not register his FIR, he sent a complaint
petition to the Chief Minister and as well to the Governor, Odisha seeking
justice.
His ordeal
does not end there. Finding no justice from any quarters, he sat on Dharana in front of Odisha
Legislative Assembly on 12.2.15 demanding action against the police and enquiry
into the deer feast. Sri Tapan Patnaik,
ACP, Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar
persuaded him to go to the police station to sort out his grievance.
However, on reaching there he was locked
up in the police station and handed over to Sri Abhimanyu Nayak Sub-Divisional
Police Officer (SDPO) Nayagarh and to the Inspector In-Charge, Itamati Police
Station of Nayagarh district (90 kms from Bhubaneswar) who were
specially called for it. Sri
Nayak carried him to the Itamati Police
Station, framed false charges against him and sent him to jail on the next
day. He spent 6 days each in Nayagarh
Jail and Choudwar jail and got free after the lower court granted him bail. He
was released from jail on 28.2.15.
Pradip Pradhan
Date- 4.12.15
M-9937843482
19.Monitoring through RTI about Action Taken against the
Culprits involved in merciless attack on RTI Activist in Odisha
on 22nd
Sept. 15, Keshab Mahakud, a middle-aged, physically handicapped man ( one limb
is lost ) belonging to Kashikiari village
in Nayagarh district
of Odisha fell a victim
of conspiracy by a nexus of unscrupulous politicians,
corrupt officials of police and administration at district level and
anti-social elements, , for his
constant endeavour to
use RTI to expose their illegal and ant-people activities. On his way
to Bus stand, a gang of 6
hooligans ( Baru Parida, Kahnei Nayak,
Nibasi Parida, Nalu Parida, Bharat Nayak, Ashok Nayak ) attacked
him and mercilessly hit him with lethal weapons including an iron rod
damaging his two legs and one hand
permanently. All the crucial documents such as
his voter ID card and BPL Card were snatched away by the miscreants. As a result of
multiple bruises and profuse bleeding caused by this sudden but pre-meditated
attack, Sri Mahakud fell unconscious and the goons abandoned him on the spot.
However, after getting telephone call from some unknown source , the police
staff of Mahipur Police Outpost rescued
him and sent him to Nayagarh Hospital
for treatment, where from he was again transferred to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and
finally from there to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He was
discharged from Medical on 3.10.15.
His son
Kuber Mahakud had filed an FIR in
Nuagaon police station on 22.9.15. Though the police registered the case No. 59 dt.
22.9.15 , U/S-341/323/325/307/379/34 IPC, the police did not take any steps to arrest the accused. After the news about
attack on Keshab Mahakud was
highlighted in mass media,
many RTI Activists from
different parts of the country wrote letter to Chief Minister and Director General of
Police, Odisha demanding quick action
against the culprits and provide
protection to Sri Mahakud. Complaint case was also filed in Odisha Human
Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission.
On
9.10.15, RTI Activists of Odisha held Dharana in front of DG, Police and
submitted memorandum seeking immediate action
against the culprits
involved in merciless attack on
Keshab Mahakud and enquire into details of the factors leading to attack on him. In the meantime, NHRC has also called for report about Action Taken against the culprits masterminded the attack.
On
28.12.15, RTI Application was submitted to the PIO, Nuagaon police station seeking
information about details of action taken by the Police to arrest the accused.
On 7.1.16, the PIO has supplied the
information which is as follows.
During course of investigation, the spot was
verified . the Complainant and witnesses
were examined. The accused persons
namely Ashok Nayak, Antaryami Parida, Bharat Parida have been arrested and forwarded to the court of SDJM Nayagarh and the other accused persons
namely Bijay Kumar Parida, Pramod Kumar parida, Hrushikesh Parida, Nalu
Parida, Pradeep Nayak have been
arrested and released on bail as per order of High Court of Odisha. This case was chargesheeted on 3.12.15 vide Nuagaon PS Charge sheet No.
89.
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 19.1.16
20. Incompetency and Inefficiency of
Odisha Information Commission leading to huge pendency of more than 6000 cases
in Commission, exposed through RTI
·
Each Odisha Information Commissioner
receives salary Rs. 1,92,000.00 per
month except other facilities like
accommodation, vehicle, telephone availed free of cost.
·
If it is roughly calculated, we spent Rs. 2.5
lakh per month for each Information Commissioner in Odisha.
·
We pay Rs.12,000.00 per day of hearing
of Case by Odisha Information Commissioner
·
Each Information Commissioner devotes
only 15 days in a month for hearing the case.
·
Only 9 no. of cases heard by each Information Commissioner per day
·
Only 19 no. of cases disposed by each
Information Commissioner per
month
·
Total no. of 6000 cases pending in the
Commission.
·
There will be delay of minimum 2 years
for hearing and disposal of a Case. For example, if a case is filed in 2016, it
will be heard in 2018 or 2019 .
·
To get correct information in right
time is distant dream for the Citizens.
·
Odisha Information Commission has been
reduced to mockery.
When two
new Information Commissioners got
appointed in June 2015 by State Govt. without following transparent procedure, it was suggested by friends and supporters that
the functioning of these
Information Commissioners should be silently observed without
raising any issues in public
domain. We patiently observed their functioning of 7 months and started
monitoring their activities through RTI.
The information about functioning of the Information Commission provided
by the PIO is as follows.
1.
Two State Information Commissioners
namely Sri Laxminarayan Pattanaik and Ms. Sashiprava Bindhani have joined in the Commission as State Information Commissioner on 16.6.15.
2.
But they started their case
hearing on 22.6.15
3.
Within 7 months ( June to
Dec.15), both the Information
commissioners have received each Rs. 12.50 lakh ( Ms. Sashi Bindhani receives
salary Rs. 1,92,000.00 per month).
4.
No. of days devoted for hearing by both the Information Commissioners
|
Total
no. of days devoted by Ms. Sashi
Bindhani for hearing within 7 months |
114 |
|
Average
No. of days devoted by Ms. Bidhani, SIC
for hearing per month |
16 days
only |
|
Amount
paid from State Exchequer to Ms. Bindhani per day hearing |
12,000.00
|
|
Total
no. of days devoted by Sri L.N.
Pattanaik,SIC for hearing within 7 months |
103 |
|
Average
No. of days devoted by Sri L.N. Pattanaik for hearing per month |
14 |
|
Amount
paid from State Exchequer to Sri Pattanaik
per day hearing |
13,714.00 |
5.
No. of cases heard by both the
Information Commissioners
|
No. of
cases ( Second Appeal and Complaint
Case ) heard by Both the Information Commissioners in division bench within 7 months |
425 |
|
No. of
cases ( Second Appeal and Complaint
Case ) heard by Ms. Sashi Bindhani,SIC in single
bench within 7 months |
668 |
|
No. of
cases ( Second Appeal and Complaint
Case ) heard by Sri L.N. Pattanaik, SIC in single
bench within 7 months |
564 |
|
Total No. of Cases heard by the Commission within
7 months |
1657 |
|
No. of
cases heard per month by single
Information Commissioner |
118 |
|
No. of
cases heard per day by a single Information Commissioner (112 / 14 days
devoted for hearing ) |
9 |
6.
No. of Cases disposed by both the
Information Commissioners within 7 months
|
No.
of Cases ( Second Appeal and Complaint Case ) disposed by both the
Information Commissioners in Division
Bench from June to Dec.15 |
56 |
|
No.
of cases disposed by Ms. Sashiprava
Bindhani, SIC within 7 months |
107 |
|
No.
of cases disposed by Sri L.N. Pattanaik, SIC within 7 months |
106 |
|
Total
cases disposed |
269 |
|
No.
of Cases disposed by single
Information Commissioner within 7
months |
134 |
|
No.
of cases disposed by single Information Commissioner per
month |
19 |
|
No.
of cases disposed by
single Information Commissioner
per day ( 14 days devoted for hearing in a month) |
1.3 |
7.
There are 725 Complaint Cases and 5249
Second Appeals pending in the Commission
till December, 2015
Pradip
Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date-
5.2.16
21. Upendra Nath Behera,
IAS putting unwarranted pressure on officers of Finance Department, Govt. of
Odisha to approve Retirement Pension of Shri Tarun Kanti Mishra at a
higher-scale
It has come to our notice that a complaint (
disclosed from confidential sources) has
been lodged to Chief Secretary, Odisha
to enquire into alleged unwarranted pressure exerted by Sri
U.N.Behera, IAS on officers of Finance Department , Govt. of Odisha to approve
Retirement Pension of Shri Tarun Kanti Mishra at a higher-scale which he does
not deserve it.
Shri Tarun
Kanti Mishra IAS resigned from the post of Chief Information Commissioner in
Feb 2015 much before date of his
retirement. As he did not complete his
Term as Chief Information Commissioner,
he will not be
eligible for any benefit arising out of that incomplete tenure.
It is being
circulated in public-domain for past few days that Shri Upendra Nath Behera IAS posted in Chief
Minister’s Office is continuously telephoning & putting pressure on
officers of State Finance Department to approve Pension of Shri Tarun Kanti
Mishra IAS Retd. (2010) at a much higher scale.
Both Sri
T.K.Mishra and Sri U.N.Behera is infamous in bureaucratic circle for their
land-grabbing character. While Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra has acquired
four plots from BDA, CDA and GA (
one plot and another adjoining plot) illegally, Sri U.N.Behera has
earned competency to grab two plots from GA and CDA and giving it rent to Sri
Achyut Samant, KIIT, another land Mafia of Bhubaneswar.
What two of them did together in G.A. came to
light during 2012 during Bijay Kumar Patnaik’s tenure, in 2012. It was
discovered that UN Behera had promoted a land-broker named Rama Chandra Sahoo
of Banki introduced by MLA Pravat Tripathy to him during his tenure in GA. Both
arranged hundreds of GA residential
plots for the land-broker by means of Power of Attorney of 300-500 GA Plots.
When CAG Audit Paragraphs reached the Chief Secretary he had to transfer Behera
overnight on 2-11-2012. Behera tried his best not to go; but the heat was too
much.
However, UN
Behera washed his face & became purified by ‘Gangajal’ of CMO posting. Thus
he is abusing his position as closet man of Chief Minister; and exerting undue
pressure for his friends. Against him, only Court inquiry into some matters is
in progress.
His taking
bribe of Rs. 35/- Lakhs - exact amount - from private IMFL wholesalers during
December 2000; and sabotaging Cabinet Decision dt. 13.10.2000 by creating
unauthrized Note Sheets in Excise Deptt. File No. OSBC 15/2000 has been brought
to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary twice which is pending for inquiry except by Vig. Court. His removing (false) affidavit
& 11 other pages from his wife Anusuya Beher’a GA Plot file is not yet
inquired into. His affairs in Mines matters, IDCO, and GA Land are also pending
for inquiry. Sri Behera had
also masterminded in entering a
false American University Ph. D Degree in Service Record of a Senior Assistant
Ashok Kumar Mohanty; and did not guide the poor SA not to indulge in such
unethical things.
RTI
Application has been submitted to Dept. of Finance to access the information about details of
the proposal of pension paper of Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra.
Pradip
Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date-
13.2.16
22. After
a decade long battle of wits BPL applicants in Odisha could avail their right
to information free of cost
The Right to
Information Act that came into
force on 12th October,
2005 has the mandate
to enforce a transparent and
accountable system of governance in the
country by way of giving right
to the citizens to access the
information held by the Public
Authorities. As is well known, the
Section 7 (5) of the Act says, the BPL people are required not to pay any kind
of fee i.e., fee for application {section 6 (1) }, fee towards cost of information {section-7(1)} and fee towards
cost of information in electronic format. But while framing the Rules under RTI
Act i.e.
Odisha RTI Rules, 2005, the
Government of Odisha made quite some deviations from the letter and
spirit of the parent Act. A glaring instance of one such deviation was the Rule
4, which explicitly provided for exempting the BPL people from paying only
application fee, while remaining mute in respect of other two kinds of fees.
Owing to this devious gap, the public authorities under Government of Odisha
insisted on collecting information fees from the BPL persons, who felt
obviously strained and discouraged to apply for information at all. To register
protest against such Orissa Rules a civil society forum called Orissa Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan got soon formed comprising young RTI activists and as well
progressive minded senior citizens of the state. It is worth recollecting that the
illustrious RTI protagonists at national level like Mrs. Aruna Roy, Ms. Maja
Daruwalla and Mr. Shailesh Gandhi had made a common cause with Abhijan’s
critique of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 and each of them did also separately write to
the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary to amend the impugned Rules in tune with
letter and spirit of the parent Act.
Ironically enough, the collection of fees from the BPL people, though
patently illegal, was justified by the Odisha Information Commission, who was
supposed to recommend to the State Govt for undoing this wrong. Sri D.N. Padhi, the first Odisha Chief
Information Commissioner, while deciding the
Complaint Cases Nos. 11 and 12 of 2006 made an arbitrary order that the
BPL people were required to pay the fees
towards cost of information, no matter
what was mentioned in proviso to Section 7(5).. However this objectionable
dictate of Sri Padhi was vehemently
protested by RTI Activists united under Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan.
Besides, the Commission had also acquired a controversial image due to its
several other acts of omission and commission. The Abhijan submitted a
Memorandum to Governor, Odisha under Section 17 of the RTI Act urging action
against Sri D.N.Padhi on account of his untenable acts and decisions, taken in
flagrant violation of the provisions of RTI Act. Though no action was taken
against Sri Padhi, the Commission under the moral pressure of the strident
campaign by Abhijan made a recommendation to the State Govt. on 16.11.2007
to allow free of cost supply of
information to the BPL applicants upto 75 pages. . But the State Govt. did not give any
importance to this recommendation and
continued with their illegal practice of collecting the fees towards cost of
information from the BPL applicants. The above recommendation being only a
face-saving ploy of the Commission, neither the Commisson itself nor the
Government pursued it any further. However, undeterred by the negative attitude
of both Government and Commission towards BPL people, the Abhijan stepped up
its campaign for withdrawal of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 that illegally allowed the
collection of information fees from the BPL persons and several other
objectionable provisions like imposition of appeal fees, compulsory application
form, complete disclosure of identity of the applicant, user-unfriendly modes
of payment like treasury challan and judicial stamps, PIO’s reply in Form-B
lacking in calculation of fees payable by the applicant and rejection of an RTI
application by a PIO on any arbitrary ground. Meanwhile Sri Jagadanand Mohanty,
a civil society veteran joined in the Commission as a State Information
Commissioner, but ironically he too toed the anti-BPL line of the Government
and as well that of the State Chief Information Commissioner. Surprisingly Mr. Mohanty didn’t have any
qualms in making his anti-BPL stance public. For instance, in May, 2013 while addressing an RTI Workshop in the
Collectorate Conference Hall, Malkangiri Mr. Mohanty in the capacity of State
Information Commissioner went to the
extent of justifying the Orissa Rules’ denial of free-of-cost information to
the BPL persons, on the ground that the Commission had received a lot of
complaints about the possible misuse of this provision by the BPL people
themselves. Sri Tapan Padhi a well known social activist who happened to be
present there, filed an RTI Application before
Odisha Information Commission seeking particulars of Complaint Cases, if
any, about the misuse of RTI as alleged
by SIC Sri Jagadanand Mohanty. Interestingly, the PIO of Commission, in reply,
said that there was no such information available in their office. The campaign of the Abhijan
took an intensified turn when Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, the next Chief Information
Commissioner of Odisha while adjudicating a Complaint case No. 2028/11 directed
Sri Kunja Bikari Patra, a BPL Applicant and RTI Activist of Nayagarh district
to pay the fees for information, as against Sri Patra’s passionate pleading to
get the information free of cost as mandated under Section 7 (5) of RTI
Act. The direction of the Commission was
challenged by Sri Patra himself in Odisha High Court. While disposing the case ( W.P.C. No.- 4797/13) on
3.7.13, the High Court quashed the
decision of the Commission as illegal
and directed the concerned PIO to provide the information free of
cost in compliance to the mandate of the
parent Act. Under the pressure of Odisha High Court Judgement the Orissa
Information Commission made a direction to the State Govt. on 31.3.14 to issue
necessary notification in pursuance to the above direction of Odisha High
Court.
But
astonishingly, the State Government
still sticked on to its old hackneyed practice of collecting the cost of
information from the BPL people in naked
violation of the above direction of Odisha High Court. The Orissa Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan however heightened its campaign through various fora including
the Gopabandhu Academy of Administration Bhubaneswar to impress upon the State
Government the utter untenability of making BPL persons pay the information
fees. At this juncture Sri Dhoba Sahu, a
BPL Applicant himself , inspired by Sri Dillip Das of Antodaya Bhabanipatana,
filed a
Writ Petition (No. 12135/15) in Odisha High Court seeking direction
to the State Govt. to provide the information free of cost to all BPL
applicants. . On 23.7.15, the High
Court gave the direction, second in
order, to the State Govt. to comply
with Section 7 (5) of the RTI Act
within 3 months. On 21.9.15, the State
Govt. has finally issued the much awaited notification directing all the Public Authorities to
provide the BPL applicants with information free of cost under the RTI Act.
Thus, only a single nuisance of the notorious
Orissa RTI Rules 2005 could be done away with- following a decade-long
protracted and multipronged engagement of Orissa Soochana Adhikar Abhijan with
several constructional and statutory authorities- Governor, Chief Minister,
State Information Commission and Odisha High Court. The Abhijan’s campaign is
on and its flag-bearers are ready to march unto the last for ensuring that the
said Rules is replaced by one that is appropriately designed in tune with the
ctizen-friendlly letter and spirit of the parent Act.
Pradip
Pradhan
State
Convener
Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-9937843482
Email-pradippradhan63@gmail.com
Date-6.2.16
MEMORANDUM AND COMPLAINTS TO
DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES ON REFORM OF RTI
REGIME IN ODISHA
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Demanding an enquiry against Mr. D.N.Padhi,
State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa
under section 17 of RTI Act.
Hon’ble Sir
I Sri Kunja
Bihari Patra, a resident of Nayagarh
district bring to your kind notice the
following complaint against Mr.
D.N.Padhi, SCIC seeking your necessary
action.
That, on
29.5.08, I submitted RTI Application to the PIO, Jagannath Prasad Panchayat
Samiti, Ganjam district seeking information about details of expenditure made
for construction of road from Kanikapanhara to Badagunduribari during
January’2004 to May’2008. Getting no information, I filed
a Complaint case in the office of Orissa Information Commission on
25.8.2008.
Mr.
D.N.Padhi, State Chief Information Commissioner took up my case (Complaint case
No. 1289/08) and started hearing on 4.8.2009 after around one year of filing of
my case. Mr. D. N. Padhi heard my case
four times i.e., 4.8.2009, 10.3.10, 4.4.10, 21.6.10.
In the first
hearing on 4.8.2009, finding the absence of
the PIO, the Commission directed that the photocopy
of the application be sent to the
PIO, office of Jagannath Prasad Panchayat Samiti of Ganjam district to supply
me information within 30 days on payment of cost as required under Orissa
RTI Rules, 2005.
After
receiving the letter from the office of the Commission, the PIO on dated
11.8.09 issued letter to me to deposit
Rs. 1000/- in India Bank, Jagannath Prasad mentioning A/C No. 771192342 towards
the cost of the information. In response to this letter, I
wrote that being a the BPL person, I need not deposit fee for
information under section 7(5) of RTI Act.
However,
after a long gap of around 7 months, the second hearing of the case took place on
10.3.10. The PIO was absent. The
Commission recorded the submission note produced by PIO who has mentioned that
though the Complainant did not turn up , he could not supply the
information. However, the Commission
issued direction to the PIO to produce the corroborative evidence with regard
to letter sent to the Complainant.
On third
hearing i.e. dated 5.4.10, The PIO submitted all the evidence to prove his
statement of furnishing the letter to
the Complainant asking him to deposit fee for information. But I immediately reacted and said that I had not
got any information from the PIO. I also alleged that the PIO had violated
section 7(5) of the Act by asking me to
deposit Rs. 1000.00 towards cost of information. But the Commission argued that there is no such provision in Orissa Rules to provide the information to the BPL people
free of cost. It deserves to be mentioned that Orissa RTI Rules nowhere
allows the PIO to collect from BPL
people fee for information. When I referred section 7(5) of the RTI Act, Mr.
D.N.Padhi simply misbehaved me and asked me
“can you purchase vegetable from
the market free of cost by showing your
BPL Card”. Mr. D. N. Padhi decried that
complainant had to deposit fee
for information. Otherwise information could not be supplied. It is also
astonishing to me to see that in the decision Mr. D.N.Padhi has mentioned that “ the complainant had already
received the requested
information as confirmed by him
during the hearing” which is absolutely wrong. It is also more
astonishing that Mr. D.N.Padhi had very cunningly mentioned in his decision
that Complainant (me) had already
received all the required information free of cost which is absolutely false, as Mr. Padhi is
quite aware that I had not received any information.
Without
providing any information, Mr. Padhi
closed the case and did not impose any penalty who could not supply me information.
Mr. Padhi has
also precariously failed to observe
section 7(5) of RTI Act by compelling me
to pay fees for information which
should be supplied me free of cost under
section 7(5) of RTI Act.
As I
know, the Commission is empowered to protect the Act and
remove any difficulties if
found in the implementation of RTI Act.
But here in this case, the Commission not only failed to protect the spirit of the Act but failed to give justice to me.
Last but not
least, I request you to make an enquiry
into it and take exemplary action
against Mr. D.N.Padhi who has subverted RTI in the state.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Kunja Bihari
Patra
At-
Barapurikia(Dasapalla)
Post-Dasapalla
Dist-
Nayagarh
Date-12.9.2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
Shri M.
C. Bhandare Date-20.7.12
Hon’ble Governor, Odisha
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Ensure a transparent process for
selecting State Information Commissioners
Sir,
We the Members of Civil Society
concerned for effective implementation of Right to
Information Act in the state would like to put forth the following
matter in the interest of setting up a transparent procedure for
appointing a person in the post
of State Information Commissioner.
It
has come to our knowledge that the State Govt. has already
created a post
for appointment of another
Information Commissioner in the State, and is going to appoint
somebody as State Information
Commissioner very soon. Over a few years last, we have been
observing that the Selection Committee headed by the Chief Minister has recommended some persons
as State Chief Information
Commissioner or State Information Commissioner without following a transparent procedure . We also observe that the
performance of the Commissioners so appointed is not satisfactory even at a
minimal level. Delayed and lingering hearings, giving much less time to
hearing, low disposal rate, and pendency of a huge backlog of cases are only a few instances of
the disheartening performances of the
said Commissioners. The RTI activists in
the state have already expressed their
discontent against the malfunctioning of Odisha Information
Commission, caused by the incompetent and complacent Commissioners, and that
too on various occasions and through various means including submission of
memoranda to Hon’ble Governor in this regard.
Under
the RTI Act, the Information Commission
is to act as an independent and autonomous, statutory, quasi-judicial
body, whose principal mandate is to adjudicate the appeals and complaints and dispense justice to the aggrieved
citizens. All this requires the persons having efficiency, competency and wide
knowledge in different fields, particularly law to be appointed to the post of
Chief State Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner, as the
case may be.
Secondly,
as RTI Act itself mandates the adoption of a transparent and accountable system
of governance in the country, it is barely necessary that the principle of
transparency needs to be first of all applied in respect of appointment of
Information Commissioners, who are supposed to serve as the custodian of this
historic legislation.
For
your kind information, Supreme Court while hearing a Writ Petition (WPC 348 & 355 of 2010) on March 3, 2011 annulled the appointment
of Shri P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner, issued a bunch of 10 directions for ensuring a
transparent process of selection for such high-profile posts. Similarly,
on October 29, 2011 the Department of
Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Govt. of India, the national level
nodal agency for RTI, in an endeavour to promote transparency, sought to invite applications for the post of
Central Information Commissioner from among the country’s citizenry. ( Copy
of Circular is attached for your reference).
Then again, on April 20, 2012 the Supreme Court
made a painful observation that the
State Information Commissioners were being selected in a non-transparent
manner. While issuing notice to the respondents in the Special Leave Petition
no. 12830 of 2012, the apex court asked, “Whether selection for appointment of
State Information Commissioners can be made without adopting a transparent
and fair method of selection in which all eligible persons can participate for
appointment to such post/office can be treated as private affair of a
particular political set up.”
In
this backdrop, we urge you, in your capacity as the appointing authority, to
prevail on the Government of Odisha to
invite applications and suggestions so that “all eligible persons can
participate in the process of appointment to the posts of Information
Commissioners. Section 15(5) of the RTI Act states, “The State Chief
Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be
persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law,
science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or
administration and governance”. The
details of applications to be received in response and the grounds of rejection
of the candidates should be web-hosted
for the knowledge of public at large and also to maintain transparency
in the selection process.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Mr. Rabi
Das
Pradip Pradhan
Journalist
State
Convener
Biswajit
Mohanty Ashok
Kumar Paikaray, Social Activist
Board Member, Transparency International
Durga
Prasad Tripathy Nirakar
Tripathy
Durga
Prasad Mishra
Usharani Behera, BGVS, Odisha
Blorin
Mohanty, BGVS, Odisha Mahendra
Padhi, CFAR, Bhubaneswar
Manoj Jena
Sandeep
Mohanty
Chairperson,
Human Rights Front,
Odisha Convener, YUVA, Odisha
Dillip
Das, Antodaya, Kalahandi Lalit Mishra, State
Vigilance Council, Cuttack
Ashok
Nanda, Md.
Ziauddin Ahmad
Convener,
Lok Samukhya
General Secretary
Dr. Ramesh
Behera Odisha
Nagarik Samaj
Bijay
Parida Bikram
Swain
Contact address
Plot No-D-27, Maitree Vihar
Post-Rail Vihar, Bhubaneswar-23
M-99378-43482
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan
VIM-316, Sailashree Vihar, C.S.Pur,
Bhubaneswar
E-mail- odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com, Website- www.orissarti.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Ref
No-OSAA/101/12 Date-
27.6.2012
To
The
Governor, Orissa
Raj
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub-
Seeking enquiry into Mal-functioning of Odisha Information Commission under
Section 17 of the RTI Act
Sir,
Greetings
from “Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan”.
We
the RTI Activists working together
under the banner of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan ( a Network of Civil
Society Groups and RTI Activists spearheading the campaign for effective
implementation of RTI Act in the state)
bring to your kind notice a number of facts about mal-functioning of Orissa Information
Commission and other allied matters seeking
your kind intervention and urgent
action.
1. Enquiry into all Complaint cases filed
before His Excellency-
Since
2006, numerous complaints have been lodged against Chief Orissa Information
Commissioner and State Information Commissioners under Section 17 of RTI Act on
the grounds of inefficiency, misbehavior, corruption, vested interests and
moral turpitude by the aggrieved citizens during last 5 years. As per the
sub-section (1) of the said Section, the Governor should have got the said
allegations enquired by the Supreme Court to ascertain their veracity, and then
order the removal of the concerned
Commissioner if found guilty. But as yet, no statutory action has been taken by
the Governor on any such allegation.
From the information obtained through RTI
Act, it is learnt that series of Complaints filed so far have not been brought
to the notice of His Excellency. As a matter of fact, these Complaints have
been dealt with by an officer in
the rank of Deputy Secretary, who without putting forth the received
complaints before the Governor have been continuing to forward the same
to the Dept. of I and PR, Govt. of Odisha which has in turn
forwarded the same to the office of
Information Commission for necessary action. Thus a ludicrous situation has
been created, where the alleged offenders have been offered the chance of
acting as judges over the allegations advanced against them. So, we request his Excellency to stop this
farcical treatment of the people’s allegations and order enquiry as per the law into all the
allegations submitted so far under section 17 of the RTI Act.
2.
Summer
Vacation Leave taken by the Commission
– an arbitrary and Illegal practice.
It has come to our notice that the Information Commissioners of the
state have suspended hearing of the cases and
taken leave for 18 days in the month
of June 2012 terming it as Summer Vacation Leave. Taking leave as Summer Vacation is nowhere
in practice in any office of quasi judicial bodies of the country. As we know, Odisha
Information Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and not a judicial body like
High Court or Supreme Court. No other Commission like Odisha Human Rights
Commission, State Commission for Women or even Central Information Commission
takes such type of leave. So we
request his Excellency to enquire into the matter, issue show cause
to the Information Commissioners
and pending the results of
enquiry deduct the dues for 18 days from their monthly salary and allowances for the Month of June. Such deduction, which
is perfectly in tune with the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would send a right
signal to the concerned Commissioners who have taken an illegal and arbitrary
leave on their own and have thereby created a bad precedent.
3. Recovery of Funds Misappropriated in the name
of IEC activities:
In
contravention of the RTI Act 2005 and Orissa RTI Rules 2005 framed there-under,
Oissa Information Commission led by the
then OSCIC Mr.D.N.Padhi in league with other two State Information
Commissioners misappropriated a total of Rupees 3 crore 25 lakh 61 thousand and
787 only from the State exchequer during last 5 years 2005-10 in the name of
IEC activities, neglecting their statutory duties for adjudication and report
writing.
Total
Rs.3,25,61,787/-
(Rupees 3 crore 25 lakh 61 thousand 787)
Source:
‘Awareness raising activities of Orissa Information Commission during
2005-2010’ from the website of Orissa Information Commission
(http://orissasoochanacommission.nic.in/Awareness%20Raising%20Activities%20of%20OIC.pdf)
As gathered from the information obtained
through RTI the Departments of Finance,
I and PR and Planning and Coordination couldn’t give any reply as to how
the decision was taken to grant the above amount of money to the
Information Commission to organize awareness programme, where as this
sum should have been spent by the Government of Odisha in the Department of
I&PR the nodal agency for RTI.
It is
therefore imperative that the said amount is fully recovered from the concerned
Commissioners who have misappropriated it. Secondly, the Governor should
institute an enquiry by the Supreme Court as required under Section 17(1) of
RTI Act to unearth the details of clandestine connivance and complicity by a
section of corrupt officials of the State Government, who facilitated the above
Commissioners to successfully misappropriate the above amount with impunity
from the State exchequer.
4. Review of the tainted Decisions of Orissa
Information Commission:
Most of
the decisions made by Orissa Information Commission since 2006 have gone against the letter and spirit of
RTI Act. For instance, Mr.D.N. Padhi former Chief Information Commissioner
didn’t have any compunction in making such erratic pronouncements as ‘onus of
proof lies on the complainant’, ‘complaints on Section-4 don’t come under
purview of adjudication by the Commission’, ‘BPL persons are not exempt from
fees against cost of information’, and ‘absence of the complainant who has been
summoned by speed-post is not condonable’. Secondly, the present
Information Commissioners did also deliver quite a number of decisions
that ran counter to the well-known stance of RTI Act in the concerned matters. Besides, following the footsteps of
Mr.Padhi they have also showered extra favours to some PIOs proven guilty and
exonerated them from any penalty, harassed the complainants by lengthening the
hearing process indefinitely and showed misdemeanor towards the complainants.
All the Commissioners also maintained an inexplicable silence towards the
complainants, who were physically beaten, tortured and even jailed by the
corrupt officials for asking information that involved their acts of
corruption. The complainants who felt aggrieved by the biased decisions of the
Commissioners in respect of their Complaints and Appeals, did also lodge their
allegations before the Governor on various
grounds such as inefficiency and vested interests. But till date,
Governor has not enquired into any such allegation. It is therefore requested
that the Governor order the review by the Supreme Court of all the tainted
decisions taken by the Commission during last 7 years, as required under
Section 17 of RTI Act.
5.
Governor to order the Government to amend Orissa RTI Rules 2005:
One of the
contributory factors, that prodded the then Chief OSIC and State Information Commissioners to go against
RTI Act with impunity was the Orissa RTI Rules 2005, which was not only absurd
at places, but also on the whole anti-people and ultra vires the parent Act.
Prescription of a compulsory 11-column Application Form (Form-A) requiring the
applicant to disclose inter alia his personal details and attach a proof of
so-called citizenship identity as against the mandate of the parent Act along
with the payment of application fee through treasury challan is the greatest
stumbling block before the common people of Orissa to make use of RTI Act.
Besides the above provision is also absolutely illegal, for it makes impossible
on the part of any Indian staying outside Orissa to apply for information to
any public authority located in the State. Other illegal provisions of the said
Rules are the requirement to pay appeal fees and that too through court fee
stamps to be attached to the prescribed Forms, lack of any provision for the
PIO to mention in his letter of Intimation (Form-B) the break-up of total fees
payable by the applicant and PIO’s power of rejection of an RTI application on
any ground (Form-C). Under the constant pressure by RTI activists over the
years, the State Government formed a Committee on the Amendment of Rules,
invited the public opinion through internet on the draft rules and also
promised to bring about the much needed amendment at the earliest. But it is
quite astonishing that despite several months having elapsed since the civil
society members have submitted their views on the draft amendment the
Government has turned completely silent on the issue of amending the State RTI
Rules. That being the case, both State Information Commission and State
Government continue to play a negative role as against RTI Act 2005 as before.
It is therefore earnestly requested that the Governor order the State
Government to bring about the much needed amendment of flawed Orissa RTI Rules
2005 at the earliest in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act 2005.
6. Governor to order Orissa Information Commission not
to squander away its resources after vindictive litigation against RTI
activists:
In order
to silence the RTI activists from making any criticism whatsoever about the
malfunctioning of Orissa Information Commission, Mr. D.N.Padhi at the fag end
his tenure and abusing his office and authority as Chief OSIC took to a
vindictive course by way of instituting a defamation suit valued Rs.1 lakh
against two vocal RTI activists. It is really an unprecedented move on the part
of a statutory authority that has been constituted to promote transparency and
accountability in various public authorities through the RTI Act. Being afraid of maintaining transparency and
accountability, the entire Commission has turned vindictive against its
critics. Now it seems, the primary agenda of the Commission is to hound its
critics into silence by way of lodging false litigations against them, as in
the recent instance, and that too squandering away the money and manpower of
the Commission in naked violation of the mandate of RTI Act. The Governor is
requested to ensure that no Commissioner is ever allowed to abuse the name and
resources of the Commission to fulfill his personal vendetta.
7.
Governor to order the Commission to make all correspondence in Odia language-
Under
Section 4(4) of the RTI Act, all proactively disclosed information {section
4(1b)} should be disseminated in local language. The decisions of the
Commission being in the nature of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the
Act need to be written and published in Odia language. Again, it is astonishing that
the Information Commissioners are making all correspondence with the semi-literate
Complainants and appellants of
the State in English which creates a lot of hindrance for the people to understand the
letters and decisions of the Commission. Moreover, even
the English language used by the Commissioners in their orders
suffers from serious grammatical errors.
The Information Commissioners also lack
in efficiency and skill to write the
decisions properly. So
it is requested that His
Excellency direct the Information
Commissioners to make all their correspondence and decisions
in Odia language, at least with
Odia knowing people.
8.
Governor to direct the State Govt. and Odisha Information Commission not to
collect fees from BPL people.
Under
section 7(5) of RTI Act, the BPL people are exempted from paying any kind of
fee like application fee {section -6(1)}, fee for information {section-7(1)}
and additional fee for information that may be available in electronic format
{section 7(5) }. Even the Odisha RTI Rules has no where prescribed the
collection of fees towards the cost of information from the BPL people. But the
State Govt. has given an unwritten
direction to all its offices to collect the fees for information from the
BPL people. Even the Odisha Information Commission keeps on arbitrarily
collecting fees for information from the BPL people without any rhyme or
reason. As a result thousands of BPL people
could not exercise their right
under the Act. Even the
Information Commission which is empowered to protect the sanctity of the
Act is acting to subvert it by joining hands with State
Govt. and forcing the BPL people to pay the fees for information. We therefore request His
Excellency to direct both State Govt. and Odisha
Information Commission to provide
information to the BPL people free of cost as per Section 7(5) of RTI Act.
Members of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
Pradip
Pradhan Tapan
Mohapatra
Biswajit Mohanty
State
Convener RTI Activist Member,
Transparency International
M-99378-43482
India Chapter
Bikram
swain Ramesh Ch. Behera
RTI
Activist RTI Activist
Odisha Soochana Adhikar
Abhijan
VIM-316, Sailashree Vihar, C.S.Pur,
Bhubaneswar
E-mail- odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref
No-OSAA/11/13 Date- 19.3.13
To
Chief Minister, Odisha
Bhubaneswar
Subject-Request
for withdrawal of anti-people Odisha RTI Rules 2005 framed under Right
to Information Act -2005 and its
replacement by an appropriate set of
citizen-friendly Rules to be
framed in conformity with the parent Act.
Sir
We the RTI
Activists assembled under the banner of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan in a
two-day demonstration programme organized at lower PMG on 18th and
19th March, 2013 like to present this memorandum with regard to the
anti-people and ultra vires provisions of Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 which stands
as the biggest obstacle for effective implementation of RTI Act in the state.
You are
aware that Right
to Information Act is a historic
and uniquely progressive and
pro-people Act passed by
Parliament on 15th June,
2005. It aims at maintaining utmost transparency and accountability in
the administration and delivering a clean and corruption-free system of
governance for the whole country. To operationalise the Act, the State
Government has framed Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 and Odisha Information Commission
(appeal procedure) Rules, 2006 and constituted State Information Commission to
adjudicate complaint and appeal cases and thereby to give justice to the
aggrieved citizens.
But
implementation of RTI in Odisha for more than seven years now presents an
altogether dismal picture. Lakhs of
people are still disabled for using the
RTI Act. Though a host of awareness programmes have been organized by the State
Government and Civil Society Organisations, the common, poor people are not in
a position to use it due to absurd,
anti-people and ultra vires provisions of Odisha RTI Rules, 2005. If these provisions are not withdrawn, RTI
Act will no doubt undergo a silent
burial in the state. We present below a few examples in respect of the above
mentioned indefensible provisions of Odisha RTI Rules 2005 for your reference.
1. Provision
for Proof of Citizenship
Rule-2 (e)
‘Identity’- The given definition which requires an applicant to show the
evidence of his ‘citizenship like an
electoral photo identity card, a passport or any other document which can
satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person’ at the time of submission of RTI Application
needs to be altogether abolished, as it is not in consonance with the parent Act, which under Section 6(2) says inter alia that a citizen is not
required to give ‘any other personal
details except those that may be necessary for contacting him’. Neither
Central Govt. nor any state Govt. has made such provisions in their respective
Rules.
2.
Compulsory Application Form
The State
Govt. has prescribed a compulsory application Form (Form-A), which requires to
be filled up by an RTI applicant while seeking for information. The said
lengthy 11-column Form-A requires the copy of Voter’s Card or Passport to be
attached as a proof of citizenship. This provision not only deprives the
citizens below 18 years of their right to make an application for information,
but also discloses personal details like name of father/spouse, permanent
address, age and sex etc. (as mentioned in the voter card/passport) in
contravention of the Section 6(2) of the
Act as quoted above. Further, it is seen
that it has become very difficult on the part of any common man
to fill it up. So this Form needs to be withdrawn, and the people should
be allowed to apply in their own manner as is the practice at Central level and
in other States.
3.Denial
of Application and Information through Email
Though
Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 and Rule 4(1) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 provide for
submission of RTI application and dispatch of information implied therein
through Email, not a single public authority under the control of Government of
Odisha has been able to enforce such a provision, leading to denial of right to
information to a wide section of citizens
in and outside the State. It
needs to be remedied forthwith. Each PIO should have e-mail address to enable
citizens to apply and seek information under
RTI Act.
4. Compulsory
Forms for 1st & 2nd Appeals and Appeal fees- illegal
The
imposition of compulsory Forms such as Form-D and Form-E along with Appeal fees
of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively to be paid through Court Fee is simply ultra vires Section 27(2) of the parent Act and, therefore,
needs to be withdrawn and replaced by a suitable provision declaring no form or fees for any appeal
to be made under the Act.
5.Fees
collected from BPL families against cost of information- illegal
In Odisha,
the PIOs including those of Odisha Information Commission are collecting fees
towards cost of information from the BPL people, in blatant contravention of
Section 7(5) of RTI Act. As per a study undertaken by PRIA in 2008, a good number of BPL people who initially
submitted the RTI applications to various offices in Odisha couldn’t collect the information as they were asked to
pay the fees, which they couldn’t afford. So the anti-poor practice of collecting information fees from
the BPL people in Odisha must be scrapped forthwith.
6.Form-B
(letter of intimation)
The Form-B
(PIO’s letter of intimation to the applicant) in its present shape is illegal
too, since it doesn’t contain, as it should under Section 7(3) of the Act, any
space for break-up of the total fees demanded and the particulars of first
appellate authority before whom the applicant, if aggrieved by the decision of
PIO, may lodge an appeal within the time-limit to be specified therein. Thus
Form-B needs to be redesigned as per the mandate of the Act.
7.Form-C
(letter of rejection)
The Form-C
prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 is out and out an affront
to the mandate of the parent Act for it cites a number of arbitrary grounds
for rejection of an Application, falling outside the purview of the Act, such
as, ‘Your Application is not complete in all respects’, ‘Your identity is not
satisfactory’, ‘The information is available
otherwise to Public’, ‘The
information as sought for by you is available in our Website’ and ‘For any other reason’. The Act has
stipulated clearly the possible grounds for rejecting an application fully or
partially, such as those covered under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 only. The
Form-C therefore needs be revoked to
honour the letter and spirit of Act.
8.Rule- 4: Prohibitive Modes
of fees payment
The
Schedule to Orissa RTI Amendment Rules 2006 stipulates the Fees/Amount to be
charged in respect of application fees, cost of information fees and appeal
fees. Apart from the fact that the provision of Appeal Fees is altogether
anti-people as already mentioned supra, the modes of payment of application
fees are only through cash or treasury-challan and the fees towards information
is also through cash. From the experience of nearly six and half years of RTI
implementation in the State, it has been
noticed that not only the people in the
State find it extremely hard and harsh for
use of such restrictive modes of payment, but the citizens outside the
State find it impossible for use. The
question arises - while the IPO is the standard mode of payment for all
purposes at Central level and in rest of the States, why shouldn’t it be
prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules besides other possible modes of payment like
Money Order, Demand Draft, Banker’s Cheque and Electronic Payment besides cash?
9. Suo moto disclosure of information-
haphazard, outdated that too made in English only.
Under
section 4(1b) of the RTI Act, each Public Authority is required to make
pro-active disclosure of 17 types of information within
120 days of the enactment of the
RTI Act i.e, 12th October, 2005. The I and PR Department, nodal
department for RTI has opened a website
called Loksoochana www.rtiorissa.gov.in in which the
suo motu information about many Public Authorities is available. But such information are found to be haphazard and
outdated. It is also
astonishing that the said information are found in English
which are not accessible by large chunk
of the people in the state. Despite
demand by the RTI Activists and CSOs, the State Govt. has not yet taken any steps to publish the said
information elaborately and updated as required under Section 4(1b) and in Odia
language as required under Section 4(4) of RTI Act.
We
therefore request you to consider the above demand for replacement of absurd,
anti-people and utra vires Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 by an appropriate set of
citizen friendly Rules in line with the recently notified Central RTI Rules
2012, and to order immediate steps to be taken by all public authorities for
publishing their suo moto disclosures
in elaborate and updated manner and invariably in Odia language as required
under Section 4 of RTI Act 2005.
Truly Yours,
Pradip Pradhan Jayanat Das, Puri Nilambar
Mishra, Balasore
Abhiram Mallik, Bhubaneswar Ajay Raul, Jajpur Chandmani Sandi, Sundargarh
Narayan Muni, Baliguda Krupasindhu Tandra, Sonepur Sanjay Panda, Rourkela
Lingaraj Suna, Nayagarh Gopal Ch. Mahal, Bhadrak Lalit Mishra, Puri
Ashok Nanda, Bhubaneswar Tapan Padhi, Bhubaneswar Pradipta Nayak, Human Rights Activist
Himasnhu Tripathy, Kalahandi Sanjeeb Satapathy, Bhawanipatna Dhirendra Swain, Khurda
Nilamani Joshi, Bolangir Gopabandhu Chhatria, Bolangir Kedar Nanda, Bolangir
Somanath Patnaik, Jagat Singh Pur Ahalya Digal, Jharana Sahi Subhadra Digal, Jharana Sahi
Saraswati Singh, Manasi Behera Ziauddin Muhammad, Odisha
Nagarik Samaj
Anant Kishor Swain, Dharmashala Gopal Behera, Nayagarh Bikarm Swain, Jagat Singh Pur
Arun Swain, Bhubaneswar
Odisha Soochana Adhikar
Abhijan M-99378-43482
VIM-316, Sailashree Vihar,
C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar
E-mail- odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com, Website- www.orissarti.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref
No-OSAA/12/13 Date- 26.3.13
To
The
Governor, Orissa
Raj
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub-
Seeking Dismissal of all Information Commissioners of Odisha under Section 17
of RTI Act 2005
Sir,
Greetings
from “Odisha Soochana Adhikar
Abhijan”.
We the RTI Activists assembled under banner of
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan in a
two-day demonstration programme organized at lower PMG on 18th and
19th March, 2013 bring
to your kind notice a number of facts about mal-functioning of Orissa Information
Commission and other allied matters seeking
your kind intervention and urgent
action.
1. Enquiry into all Complaint cases filed
under Section 17 of the RTI Act
Since
2006, more than 60 complaints have been lodged against Chief Orissa Information
Commissioner and State Information Commissioners under Section 17 of RTI Act on
the grounds of inefficiency, misbehavior, corruption, vested interests and
moral turpitude by the aggrieved citizens. As per the sub-section (1) of the
said Section, the Governor is required
to get such allegations enquired into by
the Supreme Court to ascertain their veracity, and then order the removal of
the concerned Commissioner if found guilty. But as yet, no statutory action has
been taken by the Governor on any such allegation.
From the information obtained through RTI
Act, it is learnt that series of Complaints filed so far have not been brought
to the notice of Governor. As a matter of fact, these Complaints have been
dealt with by an officer in the rank of Deputy Secretary, who without putting forth the received
complaints before the Governor have been continuing to forward the same
to the Dept. of I and PR, Govt. of Odisha which in turn used to
forward the same to the office of
Information Commission for necessary action. So, we request
your esteemed office to stop such
mindless treatment of the people’s allegations and to order enquiry as
per the law into all the allegations submitted so far under section 17 of the
RTI Act.
2.
Summer
Vacation and Puja vacation Leave taken
by the Commission – an arbitrary and illegal practice.
It has come to our notice that the Information Commissioners of the
state use to suspend hearing of the cases and
take leave for days together terming it as Summer Vacation Leave, Puja
Vacation leave and the like. Taking
leave as Summer Vacation or Puja vacation
is nowhere in practice in any office of quasi judicial bodies of the
country. As we know, Odisha Information Commission is a quasi-judicial body,
unlike the judicial bodies such as High Court or Supreme Court. No other kindred
Commissions like Odisha Human Rights Commission, State Commission for Women or
even Central Information Commission enjoy such statutory leave. So we request your esteemed office to enquire into the matter, issue show cause
to the Information Commissioners
and pending the results of
enquiry deduct the dues payable against
the days of leave from their monthly salary and
allowances. Such deduction, which is
perfectly in tune with the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would send a right
signal to the concerned Commissioners who have taken an illegal and arbitrary
leave on their own and have thereby set up a bad precedent.
3.
Review of the tainted Decisions of Odisha Information Commission:
Most of
the decisions made by Odisha Information Commission since 2006 have gone against the letter and spirit of
RTI Act. For instance, the Information Commissioners’ erratic pronouncements such as ‘onus of proof lies on the
complainant’, ‘complaints on Section-4 don’t come under purview of adjudication
by the Commission’, ‘BPL persons are not exempt from fees against cost of
information’, and ‘absence of the complainant who has been summoned by
speed-post is not condonable’ are ultra vires the RTI Act 2005. Secondly,
the Information Commissioners did also deliver quite a number of decisions that ran counter to the
well-known position of RTI Act in respect of the concerned matters; for example
, information about property statement
of officers can not be disclosed. Besides,
they have also showered extra favours to some PIOs proved guilty and
exonerated them from any manner of penalty, harassed the complainants by
indefinite prolonging of the hearing process and showed insulting misdemeanor
towards the complainants. All the Commissioners also maintained an inexplicable
silence towards the fate of complainants, who were physically beaten, tortured
and even jailed by the corrupt officials for asking information that involved
the acts of their corruption. The complainants who felt aggrieved by the biased
decisions of the Commissioners in respect of their Complaints and Appeals, did
also lodge their allegations before the Governor on various grounds such as inefficiency and vested
interests. But till date, the Governor
has not enquired into any such allegation. It is therefore requested that the
Governor order a review by the Supreme
Court of all the indefensible decisions and orders issued by the Commission during
last 7 years, as required under Section 17 of RTI Act.
4.
Commission
to be directed for resuming the hearing
of about 7000 cases, which were
arbitrarily closed by the Commission without any hearing.
Since the induction of Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra
as State Chief Information Commissioner,
all the three Information Commissioners including Mr.Mishra himself have
disposed and closed more than 7000 cases without holding any hearing thereon and have
simply remanded the same to the
respective First Appellate Authorities. The FAAs have neither heard the case
nor submitted any compliance report to the Commission. Though the Commission in its order of closure
formally invites a report from the
FAAs as regards the explanation from the
PIO about the denial of
information, the FAAs have neither submitted any follow-up report to the
Commission nor has the Commission taken
any follow-up penal action against the PIOs who still refuse to provide the
requested information. It is presumed that
there is a tacit understanding between the Commission and the corrupt bureaucrats not to disclose the critical and sensitive information, even
going against the RTI Act.
5.
Governor to order Odisha Information Commission not to squander away
the State Exchequer after vindictive litigation against RTI activists:
In order
to silence the RTI activists from making any criticism whatsoever about the
malfunctioning of Orissa Information Commission, Mr. D.N.Padhi, abusing his
office and authority as Chief OSIC, and of course in league with State
Commissioners unleashed a dirty course of vendetta against civil society activists only a few
days before his retirement, He employed
the good offices of Commission and State exchequer to institute a defamation
suit valued Rs.1 lakh against two well
known RTI activists. It is really an unprecedented move on the part of a
statutory authority that has been constituted to promote transparency and
accountability in various public authorities through RTI Act. Being afraid of exposure by the RTI activists
of their acts of malfeasance and corruption
, the entire Commission has
turned hostile and vindictive against any semblance of criticism against them.
Now it seems, the primary agenda of the Commission is to hound its critics into
silence by way of lodging false litigations against them, and that too
squandering away the money and manpower of the Commission in naked violation of
the mandate of RTI Act. The Governor is requested to ensure that no
Commissioner is ever allowed to abuse the name and resources of the Commission
to fulfill his personal vendetta.
6. Governor to order the Commission to write all
decisions and correspondences in Odia language-
Under
Section 4(4) of the RTI Act, all proactively disclosed information {section
4(1b)} should be disseminated in local language. The decisions of the
Commission as these are in the nature of suo motu disclosures provided under
Section 4 of the Act, need to be written and published in Odia language. Again, it is astonishing that
the Information Commissioners are making all correspondences with
the semi-literate Complainants
and appellants of the State in English which creates a lot of hindrance for the people in following the letters
and decisions of the Commission.
Moreover, even the English language
used by the Commissioners in
their orders suffers from a lot of
grammatical and technical errors. The Information Commissioners also lack
efficiency and skill to write the
decisions properly. So
it is requested that the
Information Commissioners be directed to make all their correspondence and decisions
in Odia language, to enable the Odia knowing people to understand them.
7.
Governor to direct the State Govt. and Odisha
Information Commission not to collect fees from BPL people.
Under
section 7(5) of RTI Act, the BPL people are exempted from paying any kind of
fees like application fee {section -6(1)}, fee for information {section-7(1)}
and additional fee for information {section 7(5) }. Even the Odisha RTI Rules
has no where prescribed the collection of fees towards the cost of information
from the BPL people. But the State Govt in collusion with the Commission has given an unwritten direction to all its
offices to collect the fees for
information from the BPL people. Even the Odisha Information Commission keeps
on arbitrarily collecting fees for information from the BPL people without any
rhyme or reason. As a result thousands of BPL people
could not exercise their right
under the Act. Even the
Information Commission which is empowered to protect the sanctity of the
Act is acting to subvert it by joining hands with State
Govt. and forcing the BPL people to pay the fees for information. It is therefore requested that both State
Govt. and Odisha Information Commission be directed to provide information to
the BPL people free of cost as per Section 7(5) of RTI Act.
We
request you to make an
enquiry into the above matters by the
Supreme Court as required under Section 17(1), or alternatively to dismiss all
the Information Commissioners of Odisha on the basis of the above mentioned
prima facie evidences as required under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005, and direct thereon the Government of Odisha to appoint a new batch of Information
Commissioners by way of following a transparent
procedure.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip
Pradhan Jayanat Das Tapan Padhi
State
Convener Member Member
M-99378-43482
Bikarm
Swain Ganesh Dash
Member Member
To
The
Hon’ble Governor, Odisha
Raj
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Complaint against Mr. Jagadanand, State
Information Commissioner for spreading false and misleading information in
Public Meeting under section 17 of the RTI Act
Sir
I bring to your kind notice the
following complaint against Mr.
Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner seeking your urgent action.
That, a 3
-day Mega RTI Camp was
organized by Malkangiri Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (District-level forum
of Civil Society Groups working for effective implementation of
RTI Act ) in Malkangiri district head
quarter in association with District administration on 28thto
30th May’2012. Mr. Jagadanad, State Information Commissioner
was invited to inaugurate the RTI Camp. I was invited as one of the
Resource persons to provide training to the participants. In the inaugural
session, I was present in the meeting. While delivering inaugural speech in
District-level RTI Camp, Mr. Jagadanand, SIC spoke vociferously about
objectives of RTI and its implementation in the state. He also said that it has
come to the notice of the Commission about misuse of RTI by non-BPL people who
are seeking information in the name of BPL people on the pretext of getting
information free of cost and the said information bears huge cost. Keeping it
in view, the Commission has recommended to State Govt. to provide
information to the BPL people free of cost up to Rs. 150/-. It
deserves to be mentioned here that under section 7(5) of the RTI Act,
the BPL people are not required to pay any kind of fee i.e., application fee,
fee for information, fee for information in electronic
format. Neither any State Govt. nor Central Govt. collects fee for
information from BPL people. It is only State Govt.
of Odisha and Odisha Information Commission that arbitrarily collects fee from
BPL people.
In my quest to know the truth, after returning from
Malkangiri, I submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office of Odisha
Information Commission on 6.6.12 seeking information as follows.
a. Please provide copy
of any authenticated document accessed by any Information Commissioner or any
staff of the Commission since 2006 with regard to non-BPL Applicant seeking
information in the name of BPL people.
b. Please provide
information about procedure followed by
Information Commission to know from
different field/ sources that non-BPL people seeking
information in the name of BPL people in their
effort to get the information free of cost.
On dated 3.7.12, the PIO has
responded saying that “ No such records are
available in the Commission”.
It gives clear picture that there is no such documents available
with Commission about manipulation of non-BPL people seeking information in the
name of BPL people. I got astonished how Mr. Jagadanand, SIC who has taken oath
to maintain transparency dares to spread false and
misleading information in the presence of galaxy of dignitaries like
Collector, PD, DRDA, ADM of Malkangiri and Civil Society
Groups.
It deserves to be mentioned here that Mr. Jagadanand also spoke in the meeting that
Commission had recommended to State Govt. to provide information to
the BPL people free of cost up to Rs. 150/-. The people present in
the meeting are under impression
that the State Govt. is
providing information to the BPL people free of
cost upto Rs. 150/- as per recommendation of the
Commission. But it was found wrong. The State Govt. has not accepted the
recommendation of the Commission and collecting fee from the BPL people.
I humbly request His Excellency
to make an enquiry into the matter
and take action against him.
With Regards
Tapan
Padhi
VIM-316,
Sailashree Vihar
Post-Rail
Vihar, Bhubaneswar-23
Cell Phone: +91 94376
35267
Date-13.7.2013
Petition to Minister of State for Information and Public Relation, Govt. of
Odisha by Sri Prasad harichandan, Hon’ble MLA, Odisha Legislative Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
Honourable
Minister of State for Information and Public Relations August 23,
2012
Govt. of
Odisha
Bhubaneswar
Subject- Amendment
of provisions of Odisha RTI Rules, 2005
Sir
You are aware that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is viewed as
one of the most progressive acts in the
country. Within six and half years of
its implementation, it has brought significant changes in respect of
improving governance system
remarkably. The whole administration gets
opened up to the public at large day by day. But
the RTI scenario in Odisha still
looks hazy. The story of RTI’s failure
in Odisha began with notification of Orissa RTI Rules, 2005 by Govt. of Odisha
on the 1st October, 2005, which the Government did without any
consultation in the state.
From
the very beginning, the Civil Society
and RTI activists across the
State have been steadfastly protesting against the extant Rule terming it as
repugnant and anti-people and primarily on the ground of its incongruity with the parent law. Mrs. Aruna Ray had met the Chief
Minister, Odisha on Dec 23,
2005 and urged to withdraw the
said Rules. The State Government on the floor of Assembly settled for a bunch
of new provisions that included reduction of fees on different heads and
arrangement for suo motu disclosures under Section 4 at the level of each
public authority, which was notified in the
official gazette on the 29th
May, 2006 as Odisha RTI (Amendment) Rules, 2006.
But the said Amendment vide the notification
of May 29, 2006, though fair and useful in itself, did not, however, touch at
all on the mainframe of Odisha RTI Rules 2005. Because of it the common people,
especially the BPL section are damn scared to use it. The transparent and
accountable system of governance promised by the RTI Act still remains a
far-flung posibility for the millions of the people in Odisha to be
achieved.
As I
recall, the Information and Public Relations Department of Government of
Odisha, a nodal Department. for
implementation of RTI Act in the state had made a
notification in 2010 in website www.rtiorissa.gov.in seeking suggestion for amendment to Orissa
RTI Rules and on issues relating to
implementation of RTI Act. A number of
useful suggestions were received
which were also presented in the Assembly in response to questions raised by
many Members. Understandably, the State
Govt. had also constituted a Committee
for amendment of Orissa Rules.
The said Committee has given a number of recommendations for amendment.
The Minister for I and PR , in response to a U.D. Question asked by Sri. Karendra Majhi, Member in the Assembly replied
that “ amendment of Orissa RTI Rules is under active
consideration”. Till date, no step has been taken in this regard.
I
present below certain provisions of the Odisha RTI Rules 2005 which are repugnant, inconsistent and
incongruous with the parent enactment.
1.
Provision
for Proof of Citizenship
Rule-2 (e)
‘Identity’- The given definition which requires an applicant to show the
evidence of his ‘citizenship like an electoral photo identity card, a passport
or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of
the person’ at the time of submission of
RTI Application needs to be altogether abolished, as it is not in consonance
with the parent Act, which under Section 6(2) says inter alia that a citizen is not
required to give ‘any other personal details except those that may be necessary
for contacting him’. Neither Central Govt. nor any state Govt. has made such
provisions in their respective Rules.
2.
Compulsory Application Form
The State
Govt. has prescribed a compulsory
application Form (Form-A), which requires to be filled up by an RTI applicant
while seeking for information. The said lengthy 11-column Form-A requires the
copy of Voter’s Card or Passport to be attached as a proof of citizenship. This
provision not only deprives the citizens below 18 years of their right to make
an application for information, but also discloses personal details like name
of father/spouse, permanent address, age and sex etc. (as mentioned in the
voter card/passport) in contravention of the Section 6(2) of the Act. Further, it is seen that it has become very
difficult on the part of any common
man to fill it up. So this Form needs to
be withdrawn, and the people should be allowed to apply in their own manner as
is the practice at Central level and in other
State Government. The State Govt. may develop a simplified format like
those of the Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Maharastra for facility of ordinary people to apply for
information.
3.
Denial
of Application and Information through Email
Though
Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 and Rule 4(1) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 provide for
submission of RTI application and dispatch of information implied therein, not
a single public authority under the control of Government of Odisha has been
able to enforce such a provision, leading to denial of right to information to
a wide section of citizens in and outside the State. It needs to be remedied forthwith. Each PIO
should have e-mail address to enable citizens to apply and seek information under RTI Act.
4.
Compulsory Forms for 1st & 2nd Appeals and
Appeal fees- illegal
The
imposition of compulsory Forms, Form-D and Form-E along with Appeal fees of
Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively to be paid through Court Fee is simply ultra vires in context of Section 27(2) of the parent Act and, therefore,
needs to be withdrawn and replaced by a suitable provision declaring no form or fees for any
appeal to be made under the Act.
5.
Fees
collected from BPL families against cost of information- illegal
In Odisha,
the PIO including those of Odisha Information Commission are collecting fees
towards cost of information from the BPL people, in blatant contravention of
Section 7(5) of RTI Act. As per a study undertaken by PRIA in 2008, a good number of BPL people who initially
submitted the RTI applications to various offices in Odisha didn’t collect the
information as they were asked to pay the fees, which they couldn’t afford. So
the anti-poor practice of collecting
information fees from the BPL people in Odisha must be scrapped forthwith.
6.
Form-B
(letter of intimation)
The Form-B
(PIO’s letter of intimation to the applicant) is paradoxical, since it doesn’t
contain, as it should under Section 7(3) of the Act, any space for break-up of
the total fees demanded and the particulars of first appellate authority before
whom the applicant, if aggrieved by the decision of PIO, may lodge an appeal
within the time-limit to be specified therein. Thus Form-B needs to be
redesigned as per the mandate of the Act.
7.
Form-C
(letter of rejection)
The Form-C
prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005 is out and out an affront
to the mandate of the parent Act for it cites some arbitrary grounds for
rejection of an Application falling outside the purview of the Act, such as,
‘Your Application is not complete in all respects’, ‘Your identity is not
satisfactory’, ‘The information is available
otherwise to Public’, ‘The
information as sought for by you is available in our Website’ and ‘For any other reason’. The Act has
stipulated clearly the possible grounds for rejecting an application fully or
partially, such as those covered under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 only. The
Form-C therefore needs be revoked to
honour the letter and spirit of Act.
8.
Rule-
4: Prohibitive Modes of fees payment
The
Schedule to Orissa RTI Amendment Rules 2006 stipulates the Fees/Amount to be
charged in respect of application fees, cost of information fees and appeal
fees. Apart from the fact that the provision of Appeal Fees is altogether
anti-peoplel as already mentioned supra, the modes of payment of application
fees are only through cash or treasury-challan and the fees towards information
is also through cash. From the experience of nearly six and half years of RTI
implementation in the State, it has been
noticed that not only the people in the
State find it extremely hard and harsh for
use of such restrictive modes of payment, but the citizens outside the
State find it impossible for use. The
question arises - while IPO is the standard mode of payment for all purposes at
Central level and in rest of the States, why shouldn’t it be prescribed under
Orissa RTI Rules besides other possible modes of payment like Money Order,
Demand Draft, Banker’s Cheque and Electronic Payment?
I may request you to consider these proposed
amendments to the Odisha RTI Rules, 2005 and make appropriate steps in this
regard.
Truly
Yours,
( Prasad
Harichandan )
Member,
Odisha Legislative Assembly
To
The
Secretary-cum-Commissioner
Information
and Public Relation Department
Govt.
of Orissa
Dear Sir
Many
thanks for seeking suggestion on proposed amendement of Orissa RTI
Rules-2005 in website www.rtiorissa.gov.in. We
came across proceedings of meeting of the Committee
constituted to recommend suitable amendments to Orissa RTI Rules ,
2005 and Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)
Rules,2006 held on 18.11.09 and 27.11.09 from the website of I and
PR Department. We are utterly dismayed having seen the recommendation made by
the Committee which is devoid of many crucial points that need to be amended in
the greater interest of RTI Act. Secondly we also got astonished having seen
the recommendation note that Orissa Information Commission would be given power
to issue summons to the complainant-citizens for appearing in the hearing. We
are of the view that the recommendation is ultravires to Mother Act. Because,
as per section 19 (9) and 20(1) of the Act, “ x x x x x x x x
x the burden o proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer
or the State Public Information Officer , as the case may be.” It mean that
summon can be issued to the PIO who had failed to comply the Act .
It means the PIO against whom the complaint or appeal has been lodged
before the Commission will be summoned and questioned and punished
by the Commission. The Act has recognized the sovereign power of the citizens
i.e., master of the country. So this proposed amendment is
against the spirit of the Act and needs to be withdrawn.
Since last
four years, we have been demanding for withdrawal of a number of
ultravires, absurd provisions in Orissa Rules which need to be
amended and replaced with the following recommendations.
1.Withdrawal
of Application Form
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, a citizen
seeking information is not required to submit his/her application to the
Public information Officer in any particular form. But Orissa RTI Rules has
prescribed a compulsory 11-point lengthy and complex application Form, without
proper fill-up of which one’s request for information shall not be entertained.
Moreover, the said Form requires an applicant to disclose several of
his/her personal information like identity as a citizen, permanent address, and
spouse name, which are as such prohibited from disclosure under Section 6(2) of
the Act. The Central Govt. has not prescribed any Application Form as such, and
some State Governments who have prescribed Forms have not made them
compulsory. The present Form-A of Orissa is simply a burdensome provision
for the people of Orissa. The Application Form i.e. Form-A imposed by
Govt. of Orissa should therefore be withdrawn, and as in the case of Central
Government, the citizens should be allowed to make an application under
the Act in the manner they like to.
2.
Complete withdrawal of
appeal Form and fees
There is
no provision in RTI Act to prescribe any Form or Fee for making an
appeal, first or second. The Central Govt. and many other State Governments
have therefore not prescribed any appeal form or fee. But the Govt. of Orissa,
in clear violation of the Act has prescribed both appeal form (Form D for 1st
Appeal and Form E for 2nd Appeal) and appeal fees (Rs.20/- for 1st
appeal and Rs.25/- for 2nd appeal). Besides the Orissa Rules
make it compulsory for such appeal fees to be deposited only through Court
Fee Stamps, to procure which is a great difficulty for the common citizens. So
the State Government has been urged to abolish both appeal form and appeal fees
so imposed.
3. The
provision made under the Orissa Rules-2005( vide –Rule 4) that the
Applicant has to satisfy the PIO about his/her identity
before his/her application is considered, is ultravires the parent
Act and needs to be withdrawn. The Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act
categorically says that an applicant “ shall not be required to
give any reason for requesting the information or any
other personal details except those may be
necessary for contacting him”.
4. The
provision made under Sub-Rule 2 (e) on the “identity” of an applicant
defined as “an evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo
identity card/passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority
about the citizenship of the person” is ultravires the section 6(2) of the
RTI Act for the aforesaid reason and should therefore be struck off.
5. The RTI
Act in its section -7(5) has categorically said that no
fee shall be charged from the BPL persons for application ,
cost of providing the information and cost of print or
electronic medium. But Orissa Rules have allowed the
exemption of application fee only {vide Rule-4(1)} while
depriving the BPL families of their lawful right to avail the
exemption of other two fees . Since any state Rule can not
take away a people’s right which the Central Act has
provided , the Orissa Rules as its stands today is not
only out and out ultravires but also anti-poor.
6. The
Form –C (Intimation of Rejection) as it stands now is not
only prohibitive of people’s right to information, but
also ultravires the mother law. It needs to be struck off. The
section 7(1) of the RTI Act says that a request for information can be
rejected for any of reasons specified in Section 8 and
9 only. But the Form-C in its column (i) without
specifying the particular reasons under the said sections,
mentions just in a blanket, roughshod manner that it comes under
exempted category covered under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Similarly, the
Column (iv) spaciously saying that “the information is
contained in published material available to the public and quoting
it as a ground for rejection carries no meaning for
the citizen at all. Again, the column (vi) saying “ The
information sought for is prohibited as per section
24(4) of the Act is negatively slanted against the citizen’s quest
for information, since the said section permits the information relating
to cases of corruption and human rights violation to be
disclosed albeit after getting the approval of the
Information Commission. So instead of saying just “no”, the said column might
say, “Your application has been forwarded to the Information
Commission for their opinion “. The Column (vii) saying that
“ The information would cause unwarranted invasion of
privacy of any person is absolutely redundant , since the factor
is covered under section 8(1j), already taken care of by the
column (i) mentioned above. Thus the Form-C is ultravires the
mother Act for the reasons already shown above.
We hope
, the above-mentioned set of recommendation will help
you for amending Orissa RTI Rules-2005 in the greater
interest of citizens of the state.
Pradip
Pradhan
State
Convener
Date-1.7.2010
Recommendation
of RTI Activists for Amendment of Orissa RTI Rules to be made by Govt of Orissa
Implementation
of RTI Act has been completed about more
than four years in Orissa. At the outset, while implementing
the Act, Govt. of Orissa
following section 27 of the Act
framed Orissa RTI Rules in
2005 which was severely opposed
by Civil Society Groups terming it
as absurd, illegitimate,
ultravires and anti-citizen. Many eminent citizens and national level RTI Activists like Mrs. Aruna Ray and Mr. Sailesh Gandhi criticised
and objected some provisions of Orissa RTI Rules as ultravires and appealed
to Chief Minister to withdraw it.
Being pressurized by the demands from
Civil Society Groups both at state and national level, State Govt. was forced to make amendment of
Orissa RTI Rules in form of Orissa RTI (amendment) Rules,
2006 which was notified in official gazette
on 29th May’2006.
Despite few
amendments, Orissa Rules still remain ultravires, absurd
and anti-people. The implementation of RTI Act also continues to suffer
due to this anti-people Rules, i.e.,
illegal application form and appeal fee etc In view
of this situation, Civil Society Organisations and RTI Activists continue their protracted battle against Govt. demanding withdrawal
of Orissa Rules making it
citizen-friendly.
The demands
of RTI Activists for withdrawal of ultravires provision of Orissa Rules was
echoed in the administrative circle
time and again and sounded much. Being pressurized, Dept. of Information and Public Relation, a
nodal Dept. for RTI has invited
suggestion publicly for amendment
of Orissa Rules through its newly opened website www.rtiorissa.gov.in .
In this
backdrop, a state level consultation on “Amendment of Orissa RTI Rules” was
organized to evolve a consensus for recommendation to Govt. on proposed amendment at Red Cross Bhawan on
10.7.2010. Around 100 RTI Activists, NGOs, Civil Society Organisations had
participated in the consultation. The Activists had made a lot of
recommendations for amendment of Orissa
Rules in the convention.
Then, to give final shape of the recommendations,
a Small Group Consultation was organized
at Agragamee Conference Hall, Bhubaneswar at 11 AM to 3PM on 27th
July 2010. The members present debated and discussed the clause-wise provisions
of various instruments notified by Government of Orissa under RTI Act 2005
including the Orissa RTI Rules 2005. While the need was felt to suggest
insertion of many new provisions in order to do full justice to the Act, the
initial exercise by the members was however kept limited to suggesting
amendment by way of deleting, rephrasing or where barely necessary adding to
the existing Rules.
Following the
above consultation, the suggested amendments were given effect to in the
appropriate places in each of the three principal instruments, notified by Govt
of Orissa so far, namely Orissa RTI
Rules 2005, Orissa Notification on Security and Intelligence Agencies and
Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 .
The next
Small Group Consultation was held at Bhubaneswar on 10th August 2010
at 12 noon to 4pm, where the draft Amendments were placed before the members
for their concurrence. Again a clause-wise reading of the draft amendments was
undertaken and the members present commented on the form and content of the
said amendments and suggested corrections where they felt necessary. In the
light of the comments and suggestions for rectification so received, the draft
Amendments were further revised. The following is the final version of the
draft amendments recommended by the above said three consultations.
Orissa RTI Rules-2005
Rule-2
Definition-
Rule-2 (c ) ‘fee’- The given definition is absurd,
because of its patently faulty construction. It should be reframed in congruity
with Section 27(2) of parent Act. The reframed expression may stand as follows:
‘fee’ means amount payable by the applicant under the provisions of sub-section
(1) of section 6, and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 excluding the cost
of providing information under sub-section (4) of section 4.
Rule-2 (d)
‘Form’- The given definition should be accompanied by a rider that a Form
prescribed under these Rules may be viewed as a Model one, never a Compulsory
one, since the Act itself doesn’t prescribe any Form nor mandates any
Government or Competent Authority to prescribe it.
Rule-2 (e)
‘Identity’- The given definition which requires an applicant to show the
evidence of his ‘citizenship like an
electoral photo identity card, a passport or any other document which can
satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person’ needs to be
altogether abolished, as it is ultra vires the parent Act, which under
Section 6(2) says inter alia that a
citizen is not required to give ‘any
other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him’.
Rule- 4
Procedure to obtain information-
(1) Mode of
payment of application fee shouldn’t be confined to only cash or treasury
challan. Various modes of payment like IPO, Money Order, Demand Draft and
Banker’s Cheque should be allowed in addition to the above two.
The existing
provision for submitting ‘evidence
regarding deposit of prescribed application fee’ along with the application
submitted through E-mail should be abolished, since it is not practically
workable at all. Moreover, there shouldn’t be any requirement for an
application fee to be paid for an application submitted through email.
(2) The
provision that the PIO needs to be ‘satisfied
with the identity of the applicant’ before sending his letter of intimation
to the applicant in Form-B should be abolished, since it contravenes the above
mentioned Section 6(2) of parent Act. Moreover, the PIO in his letter of
intimation to the applicant should not only inform ‘the amount of cost for providing information’ but also its detail
break-up and mode of calculation along with ‘information
concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the
amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars
of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other form’ as
required under Section 7(3) of Act.
An addition
to be made here is that the persons belonging to BPL families should be
exempted from all manner of fees towards the cost of information as required
under Section-7(5) of Act.
(3) The
limitation of 15days from the date of receipt by the applicant of PIO’s letter
of intimation, within which the applicant is required to deposit the amount
towards cost of information should be abolished, and in its place, a limitation
of 7 days from the date of the receipt of the application, within which the PIO
should send his letter of intimation in Form-B to the applicant, should be
inserted.
An addition
to be made here is that, if the cost of information is too marginal, say not
more than Rs. 10/- , then the PIO should directly dispatch the requested
information to the applicant without going through the prolonged, round-about
procedure of sending intimation to be followed the deposit of the amount by the
applicant, so as to save both public authority and Applicant from extra time,
expenditure and hassles.
Other
additions to be made here should provide for the specific procedures to be
followed by the PIO/Public Authority in respect of applications seeking
information on those matters, for which the Act has made special provisions,
such as information relating to life and
liberty (Proviso to Section 7-1), part
information (Section 10), third party
information (Section 11), information the subject matter of which relates to
events that occurred 20 years back (Section 8-3), and information concerning corruption or
human rights violation from the security and intelligence agencies (Section
24).
Rule-5
(Information regarding rejection)-
(1) The Form-C (Intimation of rejection):
Except the Col-I, the rest of its 9 Columns are ultra vires the parent Act. It
should be abolished and may be replaced by a Form that shall only mention the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9,
as mandated under section 7(1) of the Act.
Rule-7
(Memorandum of Appeal):
(1) The
Form-D prescribed for 1st Appeal should be abolished as it
contravenes the Section 19(1) of the parent Act. In its place, a simplified 1st
Appeal Form may be prescribed, with a rider that any person can make a 1st
appeal in his own format.
(2) The
existing provision of the 1st Appeal Fee, and that too, to be paid
through Court Fee Stamps should be altogether abolished as it contravenes
Sections 27(2) and 19(1) of parent Act.
(3) The
existing provision of the 2nd Appeal to be made in Form-E and that too, to be
accompanied by payment of 2nd Appeal fee through Court Fee Stamps
should be abolished as it contravenes Sections 27(2) and 19(3) of parent Act.
(4) The
existing provision of rejecting a 1st appeal or a 2nd
appeal on the ground of non-accompaniment of appeal fee should be abolished as
it contravenes Section 27(2) and Section 19 (1) & (3) of parent Act.
Rule-8
(Guidelines by the State Government)
An addition
to be inserted here is that the guidelines to be made by the State Government
from time to time shall ensure meticulous address to all the obligations
enumerated under Section-26 of the Act.
The next
addition to be made here is the obligation of the State Government to set up
necessary administrative arrangements in the office of Governor for proper
receipt and disposal of the Complaints lodged against the Chief Orissa
Information Commissioner or an Orissa Information Commissioner, as the case may
be, under Section-17 of Act. The said arrangements must ensure quick dispatch
of the acknowledgment receipt for every complaint so received, timely
institution of an enquiry by a Supreme Court Judge if necessary, and/or
appropriate disciplinary action by the office of Governor against the concerned
Commissioner found prima facie guilty, and intimation of the action so taken to
the complainant, so as to complete the whole process within 90 days of the
complaint so lodged.
Another
addition to be made here is the provision for timely submission of adequate
information by different Departments of the Government to Orissa Information
Commission on the detail status of implementation of the Act by each public
authority under their control for the purpose of compilation of such
information into a report by the Commission, for timely forwarding of the said
report by the Commission to the State nodal Department, who can in turn timely
lay it on the floor of the Assembly as required under Section-25 of the Act.
Rule-10
(Calculation of cost of damage):
The existing
provision that compels an applicant seeking information through the samples to
pay the cost of damage, if any, to the public property, is ultra vires the
parent Act and should therefore be abolished.
Rule-12
(Deposit of expenditure)
The existing
provision of ‘depositing expenditure to
be incurred for production of witness or documents before the State Information
Commission by the party at whose instance the witnesses or documents are to be
produced’ needs to be abolished as it is confusing. However, in its place,
a clear provision may be inserted for ‘depositing expenditure to be incurred
for production of witness or documents before the State Information Commission’
by the concerned PIO/ Public Authority’ may be inserted, since the onus or
burden of proof lies on the PIO concerned as per Section 19(5) and 2nd
Proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act.
Rule 13
(Realisation of Penalties or Damages):
The existing
provision for realizing the unrealized ‘damage
or any other sum payable under the Act’ from the concerned person as
arrears of land revenue should be abolished since it is ultra vires the parent
Act for the reason that there is no such provision in the said Act authorizing
the collection of damage or any other sum from an applicant or appellant, and
that too as arrears of land revenue. However, the provision of collecting an
unrealized penalty from a PIO as arrears of land revenue may be continued.
Schedule on Fees (Appended to Orissa RTI Rules 2005)
The fees for
1st & 2nd Appeal to be abolished in view of their
incongruence with Section 27(2) of the Act.
The
inspection fee for each hour following the first hour or for a fraction thereof
should be Rs.5/- only in place of existing Rs.5/- for each 15 minutes. This is
required to bring uniformity between Orissa’s RTI fee regime and that of the
Centre.
Provision for
multiple modes of payment should be made, such as Indian Postal Order, Money
Order, Cheques and Demand Drafts in addition to the existing modes of payment
through Cash or Treasury challan.
Persons
belonging to BPL families shall not be required to pay any fee against making
an application, cost of information or additional cost of information, as
required under Section-7(5) of the Act.
Orissa Notification on Security and Intelligence
Agencies u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005
The Notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated
29.10.2005, purportedly made under Section 24(4) of
the Act is deficient on many counts. Additions as follows need therefore be
made to the said notification to comply with the clear provisions made in the
parent Act-
- The blanket
expression found in the first sentence ‘.
. . nothing contained in the said Act shall apply to the following
organizations…” has ignored the requirements that are provided in the two
provisos to the said Section 24(4), namely ‘information
pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall
not be excluded under this sub-section’, and ‘in the case of information sought for in respect of allegations of
violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the
approval of State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything
contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five
days from the date of the receipt of request’. The Notification should
therefore provide for necessary arrangements to be put in place for disclosure
in the prescribed manner of information relating to corruption or human rights
violation by the concerned security and intelligence agencies.
- A provision
to be inserted for appointment of PIOs and First Appellate Officers in each of
the five security and intelligence agencies notified so far, so as to receive
and dispose of applications and appeals respectively in respect of ‘information pertaining to the allegations
of corruption and human rights violations’ as required under first proviso
to Section 24(4) of the Act.
Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure )
Rules 2006
Rule-3 (Procedure
for presentation and scrutiny of appeal)
(1) The
existing provision for presenting the Memorandum of Appeal to the Commission in
‘Form-E of the Orissa RTI Rules 2005’
is ultra vires Section 19(3) of parent Act and should therefore be abolished,
and every appellant should be allowed in line with the spirit of the parent
Act, to present the Memorandum of Appeal in a format suitable to him.
Additionally, the Form-E may be prescribed as an optional provision, but never
a compulsory one.
(2) First
addition to be made here is that every Memorandum of Appeal should be
registered within 3 days from the date of its receipt in the concerned register
maintained for the purpose;
Second
addition to be made is that the consecutive serial number assigned to a
Memorandum of Appeal should be intimated to the concerned appellant within
7days of its registration.
Third
addition to be made here is that if a Memorandum of Appeal is not considered
worth registering, then the reasons of its non-registration should be intimated
to the appellant within 7days from the date of the receipt of said Memorandum.
A fourth
addition to be made here is that the Memoranda of Appeals so registered shall
be taken up for hearing on ‘first come first serve’ basis, unless an Appeal is
set aside for the purpose of enquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Rule-6
(Procedure for presentation, and other matters relating to complaint)
(2) First
addition to be made here is that every Complaint should be registered within 3
days from the date of its receipt in the concerned register maintained for the
purpose;
Second
addition to be made is that the consecutive serial number assigned to a
Complaint should be intimated to the concerned Complainant within 7days of its
registration.
Third
addition to be made here is that if a Complaint is not considered worth
registering, then the reasons of its non-registration should be intimated to
the Complainant within 7days from the date of the receipt of said Complaint.
(3) An
addition to be made here is that the Complaints so registered with allotment of
consecutive numbers shall be taken up for hearing on ‘first come first serve’
basis, unless a Complaint is earmarked for the purpose of enquiry under Section
18(2) of the Act.
Rule-7
(Procedure in deciding appeal or complaint)
(3) An
addition to be made here is that the decision to institute an enquiry, if so
taken, shall be intimated to the Appellant or Complainant, as the case may be,
within 7 days of the said decision.
(4) An
addition to be made here is that the authorized officer shall complete the
enquiry and furnish the report thereof to the Commission within 15 days of his
appointment as the authorized enquiring officer. The given proviso saying that ‘…. the Commission shall having regard to
the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 19 specify the period
for submission of such report by the authorized officer’is confusing and
should therefore be abolished.
) Rule-8
(Service of notice by the Commission
A proviso is
to be added here that the first hearing of a Complaint or an Appeal, as the
case may be, shall be held within 30 days of its registration, and a notice for
the same shall be served by the Commission to the concerned parties within 7
days of its registration, unless the said case is earmarked for the purpose of
an enquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Another
addition to be made here is that every notice to be so served shall be written
in the regional language of the state Oriya, and an English version of the same
may be served along with the Oriya version.
Rule-9
(Personal Presence of the appellant or complainant)
A proviso
shall be made here that in any appeal proceedings the PIO, First Appellate
Officer or the representative of the concerned public authority, as the case
may be, shall be given only one opportunity to present himself in the hearing
for discharging his burden of proof, failing which he shall be held guilty and
therefore penalized as per Section 20 of the Act.
Rule-10
(Decision of the Commission)
An addition
is to be made here that the Commission shall hold a maximum of 3 hearings to
decide an Appeal or a Complaint, as the case may be, within a maximum period of
90 days from the date of its registration.
The second
addition to be made here is that every decision made by the Commission must
without -fail mention therein the date of registration of the concerned Appeal
or Complaint, as the case may be, along with its consecutive serial number.
The next
addition to be made here is that every decision of the Commission should
mention the exact provisions of the RTI Act and/or the Orissa Rules made
there-under, on the strength of which the various directions given in a
decision such as penalty, compensation, burden of proof, exemption or
non-exemption of fees or exoneration from penalty etc. are founded or can be
justified post hoc.
The last
addition to be made here is that every decision of the Commission should be
written in regional language Oriya as required by a conjoint reading of
Sections 4(4), 6(1) and 26(2). Additionally, the Commission shall make and
maintain an English version of every decision, which shall be made available on
the website of the Commission along with the Oriya version.
Rule-11
(Communication of the decision)
An addition
to be made here is that every decision of the Commission should be communicated
to the Appellant or Complainant and as well to the concerned PIO, First
Appellate Officer or representative of the Public Authority within 7days from
the date on which such decision is announced.
Another
addition to be made here is that every notice or decision to be communicated by
the Commission to a Complainant or an Appellant, as the case may be, shall be
made in the regional language Oriya in addition to the link language English.
Presented on
behalf of
Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
S-74, Maitree
Vihar
Post-Rail
Vihar
Bhubaneswar-23
E-mail-odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com
Phone-99378-43482
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
MIG-316, Sailashree Vihar,
C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
E-mail-odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com, website-www.orissarti.com
Ref.
No- OSAA/21/11
Date- 7.6.2011
To
The
Chief Secretary
Govt.
of Orissa
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Recommendation of activists for Amendment of Orissa Rules under RTI Act
2005
Enforcement of RTI Act has completed about six years in Orissa as at national level and in
other States/UTs. At the outset, in the name of implementing the Act, Govt. of
Orissa unilaterally notified Orissa RTI Rules 2005, which was however strongly
opposed by Civil Society Groups who termed it as absurd, illegitimate, and
anti-people. Many eminent citizens and national level RTI activists like Mrs.
Aruna Ray, Mr. Sailesh Gandhi and Ms.Maja Daruwala of CHRI did also object to
quite some provisions of Orissa RTI Rules on the ground of their incongruity
with the parent law. Specifically, Mrs.Ray had met the Chief Minister Orissa in
Dec 2005 and pressed him to withdraw them at the earliest. Under the mounting
pressure from Civil Society Groups both at state and national level, the State
Govt. of Orissa on the floor of Assembly in April 2006 announced a bunch of new
provisions including reduction of fees on different heads, which was notified
in official gazette on 29th May 2006 under the caption ‘Orissa RTI
(amendment) Rules, 2006’.
The above amendments, though fair and useful in themselves,
didn’t however touch at all on the mainframe of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 (such as
a lengthy application form requiring disclosure of personal details and
attachment of a copy of voter card, forms and fees for making appeals,
non-exemption of BPL persons from paying cost of information etc), which in the
opinion of civil society groups was out and out ultra vires the parent Act and
required therefore a drastic overhaul. Since then Orissa has remained under the
draconian spell of the said Rules, on account of which the implementation of
RTI Act continues to suffer badly. Ironically, Orissa Information Commission,
though empowered to suggest amendment to any illegitimate feature contained in
a State Rule, seemed to be more enthusiastic to enforce the untenable State
Rules than the State Government itself. In the face of such adverse
scenario, the Civil Society Organisations and RTI Activists chose to continue
their campaign for withdrawal of the main instrument i.e. Orissa RTI Rules 2005
and amendment to two subsidiary instruments i.e. Orissa Information Commission
(Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006, and Orissa Notification on Security and
Intelligence Agencies 2005 through different forums and activities.
And our ceaseless campaign for last five years produced some positive results too. Perhaps
under the weight of our campaign, the Dept. of Information and Public
Relations, the nodal agency of Govt of Orissa for RTI had invited suggestions
from among the members of the public on amendment to Orissa RTI Rules through a
separately launched website www.rtiorissa.gov.in.
In this backdrop, a
State level Consultation of RTI Activists on Amendment of Orissa RTI Rules was
already organized at Red Cross Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on 10.7.2010 with a view
to evolve a consensus for recommendation to Govt. on the proposed amendment.
Around 100 RTI Activists, NGOs and Civil Society Organisations from all over
the State had participated in the Consultation. They had suggested several
recommendations in the light of which Orissa RTI Rules required to be amended
by the Government.
Then, to give a formal shape to the recommendations so
proposed, several Small Group Consultations were held
at Bhubaneswar during August 2010. The members present there while finalising
the recommendations made a clause-wise reading of the provisions of the
existing instruments notified by Government of Orissa under RTI Act 2005.
Finally, a clause-wise list of suggested amendments for each of the three
principal instruments, notified by Govt of Orissa, namely Orissa RTI Rules
2005, Orissa Notification on Security and Intelligence Agencies 2005 and Orissa
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 was prepared and shared
with concerned civil society groups. And also is included here our para-wise
observations and suggestions on the draft recommendations proposed by Committee
on Amendment of Orissa RTI Rules set up by the Government of Orissa.
On 31. 8.
2011, we had formally presented
the same to the
Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Dept. of I and PR, Govt. of Orissa. Then, on 21.9.2010, a set of recommendations for
amendment of Orissa RTI Rules was presented to Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, the then
Chief Secretary, Orissa. During discussion, Mr. Mishra had assured us to take
steps for amendment of Orissa Rules. On 31.10.2010.
Orissa RTI
Rules-2005
Rule-2 Definition-
Rule-2 (c ) ‘fee’- The given definition is absurd,
because of its patently faulty construction. It should be reframed in congruity
with Section 27(2) of parent Act. The reframed expression may stand as follows:
‘fee’ means amount payable by the
applicant under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6, and
sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 excluding the cost of providing
information under sub-section (4) of section 4.
Rule-2 (d)
‘Form’- The given definition should be accompanied by a rider that a Form prescribed under these Rules may be
viewed as a Model one, never a Compulsory one, since the Act itself doesn’t
prescribe any Form nor mandates any Government or Competent Authority to
prescribe it.
Rule-2 (e)
‘Identity’- The given definition which
requires an applicant to show the evidence of his ‘citizenship like an electoral photo identity card, a passport or any
other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the
person’ needs to be altogether abolished, as it is ultra vires the
parent Act, which under Section 6(2)
says inter alia that a citizen is not required to give ‘any other personal details except those that may be necessary for
contacting him’.
Rule- 4 Procedure to obtain information-
(1) Mode of payment of application fee
shouldn’t be confined to only cash or treasury challan. Various modes of payment like IPO, Money Order, Demand Draft and
Banker’s Cheque should be allowed in addition to the above two.
The existing provision for submitting ‘evidence regarding deposit of prescribed
application fee’ along with the application submitted through E-mail should
be abolished, since it is not practically workable
at all. Moreover, there shouldn’t be any
requirement for an application fee to be paid for an application submitted
through email.
(2) The provision that the PIO needs to be ‘satisfied with the identity of the
applicant’ before sending his letter of intimation to the applicant in
Form-B should be abolished, since it contravenes the above mentioned
Section 6(2) of parent Act. Moreover, the
PIO in his letter of intimation to the applicant should not only inform ‘the amount of cost for providing
information’ but also its detail break-up and mode of calculation along
with ‘information concerning his or her
right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or
the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate
authority, time limit, process and any other form’ as required under
Section 7(3) of Act.
An addition
to be made here is that the persons
belonging to BPL families should be exempted from all manner of fees towards
the cost of information as required under Section-7(5) of Act.
(3) The limitation of 15days from the date of
receipt by the applicant of PIO’s letter of intimation, within which the
applicant is required to deposit the amount towards cost of information should
be abolished, and in its place, a limitation of 7 days from the date of the
receipt of the application, within which the PIO should send his letter of
intimation in Form-B to the applicant, should be inserted.
An addition
to be made here is that, if the cost of
information is too marginal, say not more than Rs. 10/- , then the PIO should
directly dispatch the requested information to the applicant without going
through the prolonged, round-about procedure of sending intimation to be
followed the deposit of the amount by the applicant, so as to save both public
authority and Applicant from extra time, expenditure and hassles.
Other
additions to be made here should provide for the specific procedures to be followed by the PIO/Public Authority in
respect of applications seeking information on those matters, for which the Act
has made special provisions, such as information relating to life and liberty (Proviso to Section 7-1), part information (Section 10), third party information (Section 11),
information the subject matter of which relates to events that occurred 20
years back (Section 8-3), and
information concerning corruption or human rights violation from the security
and intelligence agencies (Section 24).
Rule-5 (Information regarding rejection)-
(1) The Form-C (Intimation of rejection):
Except the Col-I, the rest of its 9 Columns are ultra vires the parent Act. It should be abolished and may be replaced
by a Form that shall only mention the
reasons specified in sections 8 and 9, as mandated under section 7(1)
of the Act.
Rule-7 (Memorandum of Appeal):
(1) The Form-D prescribed for 1st
Appeal should be abolished as it contravenes the Section 19(1) of the
parent Act. In its place, a simplified 1st
Appeal Form may be prescribed, with a rider that any person can make a 1st
appeal in his own format.
(2) The existing provision of the 1st
Appeal Fee, and that too, to be paid through Court Fee Stamps should be
altogether abolished as it contravenes Sections 27(2) and 19(1) of parent
Act.
(3) The existing provision of the 2nd Appeal to
be made in Form-E and that too, to be accompanied by payment of 2nd
Appeal fee through Court Fee Stamps should be abolished as it contravenes
Sections 27(2) and 19(3) of parent Act.
(4) The existing provision of rejecting a 1st
appeal or a 2nd appeal on the ground of non-accompaniment of appeal
fee should be abolished as it contravenes Section 27(2) and Section 19 (1)
& (3) of parent Act.
Rule-8 (Guidelines by the State Government)
An addition
to be inserted here is that the
guidelines to be made by the State Government from time to time shall ensure
meticulous address to all the obligations enumerated under Section-26 of the
Act.
The next
addition to be made here is the
obligation of the State Government to set up necessary administrative
arrangements in the office of Governor for proper receipt and disposal of the
Complaints lodged against the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner or an
Orissa Information Commissioner, as the case may be, under Section-17 of Act.
The said arrangements must ensure quick
dispatch of the acknowledgment receipt for every complaint so received, timely
institution of an enquiry by a Supreme Court Judge if necessary, and/or
appropriate disciplinary action by the office of Governor against the concerned
Commissioner found prima facie guilty, and intimation of the action so taken to
the complainant, so as to complete the whole process within 90 days of the
complaint so lodged.
Another
addition to be made here is the provision
for timely submission of adequate information by different Departments of the
Government to Orissa Information Commission on the detail status of
implementation of the Act by each public authority under their control for the
purpose of compilation of such information into a report by the Commission, for
timely forwarding of the said report by the Commission to the State nodal
Department, who can in turn timely lay it on the floor of the Assembly as
required under Section-25 of the Act.
Rule-10 (Calculation of cost of damage):
The existing provision that compels an applicant
seeking information through the samples to pay the cost of damage, if any, to
the public property, is ultra vires the parent Act and should therefore be
abolished.
Rule-12 (Deposit of expenditure)
The existing provision of ‘depositing expenditure to be incurred for production of witness or
documents before the State Information Commission by the party at whose
instance the witnesses or documents are to be produced’ needs to be abolished as
it is confusing. However, in its place, a
clear provision may be inserted for ‘depositing expenditure to be incurred for
production of witness or documents before the State Information Commission’ by
the concerned PIO/ Public Authority’ may be inserted, since the onus or
burden of proof lies on the PIO concerned as per Section 19(5) and 2nd
Proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act.
Rule 13 (Realisation of Penalties or Damages):
The existing provision for realizing the unrealized ‘damage or any other sum payable under the
Act’ from the concerned person as arrears of land revenue should be
abolished since it is ultra vires the parent Act
for the reason that there is no such provision in the said Act authorizing the
collection of damage or any other sum from an applicant or appellant, and that
too as arrears of land revenue. However, the
provision of collecting an unrealized penalty from a PIO as arrears of land
revenue may be continued.
Schedule on Fees
(Appended to Orissa RTI Rules 2005)
The fees for 1st & 2nd
Appeal to be abolished in view of their
incongruence with Section 27(2) of the Act.
The inspection fee for each hour following the first
hour or for a fraction thereof should be Rs.5/- only in place of existing Rs.5/- for each 15 minutes. This is required
to bring uniformity between Orissa’s RTI fee regime and that of the
Centre.
Provision for multiple modes of payment should be
made, such as Indian Postal Order, Money Order, Cheques and Demand Drafts in addition to the existing modes of payment through Cash or
Treasury challan.
Persons belonging to BPL families shall not be required
to pay any fee against making an application, cost of information or additional
cost of information, as required under Section-7(5)
of the Act.
Orissa
Notification on Security & Intelligence Agencies 2005
The Notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated
29.10.2005, purportedly made under Section 24(4) of
the Act is deficient on many counts. Additions
as follows need therefore be made to the said notification to comply with
the clear provisions made in the parent Act-
- The blanket
expression found in the first sentence ‘.
. . nothing contained in the said Act shall apply to the following
organizations…” has ignored the requirements that are provided in the two
provisos to the said Section 24(4), namely ‘information
pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall
not be excluded under this sub-section’, and ‘in the case of information sought for in respect of allegations of
violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the
approval of State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything
contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five
days from the date of the receipt of request’. The Notification should therefore provide for necessary arrangements to
be put in place for disclosure in the prescribed manner of information relating
to corruption or human rights violation by the concerned security and
intelligence agencies.
- A provision to be inserted for appointment
of PIOs and First Appellate Officers in each of the five security and
intelligence agencies notified so far, so as to receive and dispose of
applications and appeals respectively in respect of ‘information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human
rights violations’ as required under first proviso to Section 24(4) of
the Act.
Orissa
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure ) Rules 2006
Rule-3 (Procedure for presentation and scrutiny of
appeal)
(1) The existing provision for presenting the
Memorandum of Appeal to the Commission in ‘Form-E
of the Orissa RTI Rules 2005’ is ultra vires Section 19(3) of parent Act
and should therefore be abolished, and every
appellant should be allowed in line with the spirit of the parent Act, to
present the Memorandum of Appeal in a format suitable to him. Additionally, the Form-E may be prescribed
as an optional provision, but never a compulsory one.
(2) First
addition to be made here is that every
Memorandum of Appeal should be registered within 3 days from the date of its
receipt in the concerned register maintained for the purpose;
Second
addition to be made is that the
consecutive serial number assigned to a Memorandum of Appeal should be
intimated to the concerned appellant within 7days of its registration.
Third
addition to be made here is that if a
Memorandum of Appeal is not considered worth registering, then the reasons of
its non-registration should be intimated to the appellant within 7days from the
date of the receipt of said Memorandum.
A fourth
addition to be made here is that the
Memoranda of Appeals so registered shall be taken up for hearing on ‘first come
first serve’ basis, unless an Appeal is set aside for the purpose of enquiry
under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Rule-6 (Procedure for presentation, and other matters
relating to complaint)
(2) First
addition to be made here is that every
Complaint should be registered within 3 days from the date of its receipt in
the concerned register maintained for the purpose;
Second
addition to be made is that the
consecutive serial number assigned to a Complaint should be intimated to the
concerned Complainant within 7days of its registration.
Third
addition to be made here is that if a
Complaint is not considered worth registering, then the reasons of its
non-registration should be intimated to the Complainant within 7days from the
date of the receipt of said Complaint.
(3) An
addition to be made here is that the
Complaints so registered with allotment of consecutive numbers shall be taken
up for hearing on ‘first come first serve’ basis, unless a Complaint is
earmarked for the purpose of enquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Rule-7 (Procedure in deciding appeal or complaint)
(3) An
addition to be made here is that the
decision to institute an enquiry, if so taken, shall be intimated to the
Appellant or Complainant, as the case may be, within 7 days of the said
decision.
(4) An
addition to be made here is that the
authorized officer shall complete the enquiry and furnish the report thereof to
the Commission within 15 days of his appointment as the authorized enquiring
officer. The given proviso saying
that ‘…. the Commission shall having
regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 19 specify the
period for submission of such report by the authorized officer’is confusing
and should therefore be abolished.
Rule-8 (Service of notice by the Commission)
A proviso is
to be added here that the first hearing
of a Complaint or an Appeal, as the case may be, shall be held within 30 days
of its registration, and a notice for the same shall be served by the
Commission to the concerned parties within 7 days of its registration,
unless the said case is earmarked for the purpose of an enquiry under Section
18(2) of the Act.
Another
addition to be made here is that every
notice to be so served shall be written in the regional language of the
state Oriya, and an English version of the same may be served along with
the Oriya version.
Rule-9 (Personal Presence of the appellant or
complainant)
A proviso
shall be made here that in any appeal
proceedings the PIO, First Appellate Officer or the representative of the
concerned public authority, as the case may be, shall be given only one
opportunity to present himself in the hearing for discharging his burden of
proof, failing which he shall be
held guilty and therefore penalized as per Section 20 of the Act.
Rule-10 (Decision of the Commission)
An addition
is to be made here that the Commission
shall hold a maximum of 3 hearings to decide an Appeal or a Complaint, as
the case may be, within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of its
registration.
The second
addition to be made here is that every
decision made by the Commission must without -fail mention therein the date of
registration of the concerned Appeal or Complaint, as the case may be, along
with its consecutive serial number.
The next
addition to be made here is that every
decision of the Commission should mention the exact provisions of the RTI Act
and/or the Orissa Rules made there-under, on the strength of which the
various directions given in a decision such as penalty, compensation, burden of
proof, exemption or non-exemption of fees or exoneration from penalty etc. are
founded or can be justified post hoc.
The last
addition to be made here is that every
decision of the Commission should be written in regional language Oriya as
required by a conjoint reading of Sections 4(4), 6(1) and 26(2). Additionally, the Commission shall make and maintain an
English version of every decision, which shall be made available on the website
of the Commission along with the Oriya version.
Rule-11 (Communication of the decision)
An addition
to be made here is that every decision
of the Commission should be communicated to the Appellant or Complainant and as
well to the concerned PIO, First Appellate Officer or representative of the
Public Authority within 7days from the date on which such decision is
announced.
Another
addition to be made here is that every
notice or decision to be communicated by the Commission to a Complainant or an
Appellant, as the case may be, shall be made in the regional language Oriya in
addition to the link language English.
On the Amendment proposed by the Govt Committee to Orissa
RTI Rules 2005 and Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006
Questionable bona fides of the
Committee
One can see for himself, the proceedings of two consecutive
meetings of a 5-member Committee supposedly held on 18 and 27 Nov 2009 chaired
by Mr.R.N.Dash, Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the I&PR Dept, has been
casually drafted, without any regard having been paid to the provisions of the
parent RTI Act or even minimum requirements of grammar. Though it is mentioned
that while making the recommendations, the views of Orissa Information
Commission and as well of RTI activists, senior citizens and eminent social
activists have been taken into account, the draft has refrained from disclosing
the list of civil society groups and activists whose views the Committee had
consulted.
There is a valid reason for questioning the bona fides of
the said Committee, since one of its members Mr.Jatindra Mohan Mohanty has been
projected in the proceedings as a ‘Former Advocate General, Govt of Orissa’,
whereas there was never an Advocate General in Orissa bearing the above name.
Then it has been noticed that Prof. Radha Mohan, former State Information
Commissioner was taken as a member of the Committee in its second meeting. But
as is well known, the decisions of Prof Radhamaohan in the capacity of a
Commissioner were marked for his horrible ignorance of RTI Act and also a
pitiful lack of minimum language skill. Against him several allegations of
serious omissions and commissions are still pending in the Office of Governor
under Section 17 of RTI Act.
Casually drafted proceedings
No matter who authored the proceedings, it is written so
casually and mindlessly as to render it a heap of outrageous non-sense. For
instance, the opening sentence of the proceedings of the 1st meeting
is an irritant, since it mentions ‘as per
kinds order of the Government’. Secondly, the Para-5 of Proceedings
of 2nd Meeting has proposed ‘a substitution of Point-5 in the Form-F’, while as
a matter of fact, there is nothing called ‘Point-5’ at all in the ‘Form-F’
prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005. Thirdly, Para-1 of the proceedings of
the 1st Meeting talk of amending Rule 2(f) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005,
while there is no such provision called Rule 2(f) in the Orissa RTI Rules
2005.
Objectionable recommendations
Summons against complainants- The Committee seeks to arm the Orissa
Information Commission with sweeping penal powers with an ulterior motive to
stamp out once and for all the very possibility of an aggrieved applicant
daring to complain or appeal before the Commission against any defaulter
bureaucrat, be he a PIO, APIO or an Appellate Officer or Head of a Public
Authority. For instance, the Proceedings
of 1st Meeting in its section on Amendment to Orissa Information Commission
(Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 provide at Para-1 for vesting the Commission
with an additional power to ‘issue summons to the appellant/ complainant to
remain present during the hearing’.
It seems this recommendation is prompted by the expression
occurring in Section 18(3)(a) of RTI Act 2005, which authorizes the Commission ‘while enquiring into any matter’ for ‘(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance
of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to
produce the documents or things’. The drafters of the recommendation should
have read fully what is written in the above Section, where it is expressly
mentioned that such power to ‘summon’ along with other allied powers are
similar to the powers of a ‘civil court while trying a suit under the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908’. If that be so, let us see what the said Code says on
‘summon’. As a matter of fact, there is a Chapter entitled ‘Summons and
Discovery’ in the said Code covering Sections 27-32. The Section 27 titled ‘Summons to Defendants’ is explicit
enough as to whom the summons can be issued; it can be issued only to
Defendants, not Plaintiff or Complainant/Appellant. Thus the proposed amendment
to give power to the Commission to issue ‘summons’ the complainant/appellant is
ultra vires the CPC 1908 on which the construction of Section-18 of RTI Act is
based.
Supposing that such a power to issue ‘summons’ to an
appellant/complainant is bestowed on the Commission its consequence shall be
disastrous to the letter and spirit of RTI Act. Section-32 (Penalty for
Default) of the said Code provides for issue of warrant for arrest, attachment
of property and also imprisonment in the event of the concerned party
defaulting to present himself in response to the summons. Once an
appellant/complainant comes to know that he can be summoned by the Commission,
and in the event of his failure to appear, shall have to suffer the above
consequences, he won’t dare to lodge any appeal or complaint at all before the
Commission.
Moreover, this very draconian power of the Commission to
summon and punish the appellants/complainants shall let loose a deleterious
impact among the general public, and discourage them to submit any application
for information. Because they would take for granted that they can’t afford to
adopt the perilous course of appeal or complaint before the Commission, even if the concerned PIO refused to provide
information or provided wrong or misleading information.
Thus this single amendment as proposed shall not only
render the institution of Information Commission redundant but also drive the
whole RTI Act to a virtual demise.
However, it is very much in the fitness of the
Section-18(3) of RTI Act that the Commission should and must issue ‘summons’ to
those PIOs, APIOs or Appellate Officers (in a word the Defendants, to use the
expression of the Code), who default in appearing in the hearing before the
Commission or even abscond altogether from their respective offices to avoid
attending the a hearing called by the Commission.
Moreover, the Committee ought to know that the RTI Act has
emphatically and repeatedly (Section 19-5 and Section 20-1) placed the
onus/burden of proof on the PIO, whose denial of information constitutes the
ground of complaint or appeal by an aggrieved applicant. As a matter of fact,
in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the Rules made by the
Centre and different States including Orissa allows the freedom to the
complainant/ appellant to attend or not to attend the hearing in person or to
attend it through an authorized representative. The Rule-9 of Orissa
Information Commission (Appeal Procedure Rules) 2006 falls in line with the
above mandate.
Under the circumstances, the proposed recommendation for
‘summons’ against appellant/ complainant should be dropped, and an explicit
provision for issuing summons by the Commission to the defaulting/ absconding
PIOs/APIOs/Appellate Officers may be inserted in its place to do full justice
to RTI Act.
Perpetuating the role anomalies
An anomalous scenario has ever since dogged the RTI process
in Orissa due to non-observance of the role demarcation between the Government
and the Commission, which the RTI Act clearly laid down. Nowhere in the country
was it so brazenly violated as in Orissa. Everybody knows, the Government of
Orissa soon after notifying the Rules and forming the Commission continued to
sit with folded hands, blissfully abdicating the host of administrative duties
cast on it under Section 26 of the Act. For instance, while the said Section
entrusted the task of organizing necessary awareness and training programmes
for the officials and public on the Government itself, that all-important task
was however left to the Commission without any rhyme or reason. And the
inevitable followed. The Commissioners neglecting their prime job of hearing
and disposing the complaints and appeals, which continued to pile up day after
day, were on the contrary, found frittering away their time and energy on a
whole hog of financial and organizational activities that were none of their
assigned business - distributing funds to NGOs, printing posters and pamphlets,
arranging and addressing the meetings and camps, holding award giving
ceremonies and the like. As a result, the status of the Commissioners as
quasi-judicial
authorities soon vanished to be replaced by that of a
funding agency interested in image building and cheap publicity.
It was expected that any Amendment worth the name would
restore the mandatory role demarcation between the Government and Commission as
prescribed under the Act. But contrary to our expectation, the proposed
Amendment aims at perpetuating the role anomalies as before. For instance, Para-2 (v) of the Proceedings of 1st
Meeting provides for exercise of ‘appropriate
administrative control’ over PIOs, Appellate Officers and Public Authorities
by the ‘Nodal Officer of the Nodal
Department’ ‘as and when ordered by Orissa Information Commission’. In
absence of a clear and categorical definition of the term ‘administrative control’ in the State Rules, it would mean the
Nodal Officer shall exercise his control over the above officers as and when
ordered by the Commission. But as a matter of fact, it is only the Government
which are entrusted with the powers and obligations in respect of the entire
gamut of public authorities as clearly laid down under Section 26 of RTI Act.
Needless to say, such powers and obligations of Government are not conditional
or incidental to the occasional orders issued by the Commission but absolute
and permanent. The proposed amendment should therefore be dropped.
Again, Para-2 (iii)
of the Proceedings of 1st Meeting proposes that ‘every nodal officer would be responsible to Orissa Information
Commission to comply to mandatory provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) & (b). .
.’. Such an amendment if at all it comes through would directly contravene
Section 26 (3-g), which obligates the Government, not the Commission, to
exercise control over all the public authorities in respect of voluntary
disclosures under Section 4. It is true, as per Section 19(8-a-vi) the
Commission may, in course of a particular decision ask the concerned public
authority for ‘an annual report’ in compliance with Section 4(1-b). But that
role of Commission arises only in course of drafting a particular decision, not
otherwise and that too, only in respect of a particular public authority, which
is the opposite party in an appeal or complaint proceedings. This conditional
and incidental power of the Commission can’t be made to replace the perennial
control that the Government is mandated to exercise over all public authorities
in respect of Section 4. This proposed amendment should therefore be
dropped.
Miscellaneous anomalies
Mode of Payment- The Para-3
of Proceedings of 1st Meeting says that payment of any fee under Orissa RTI
Rules can henceforth be made through a variety of modes, such as Cash, Treasury
Challan, Money Order, Indian Postal Order or even E-payment. So far, so good.
To say the least, this provision should have been in place right since the day
one, in keeping with the similar norm in force at Centre and in other States.
With Cash or Treasury Challan being the only permissible modes of payment of
application fees, it was not only tedious on the of part of any applicant from
Orissa to arrange the Treasury Challan, but simply impossible altogether on the
part of any person stationed outside Orissa to submit an RTI application to any
public authority located in Orissa, the obvious reason being non-availability
of Orissa’s Treasury Challan anywhere outside the State. Now that this
unacceptable limitation in modes of payment is slated for removal, one may feel
elated about the future of RTI in the State. But there is a cryptic snag in the
very formulation of the amendment, which nullifies its apparent benefits. The
amendment requires the applicant citizen to submit the application fee to the
PIO ‘under
the appropriate Head of Account’. Here arises the moot question, how is
an applicant supposed to know ‘Head of Account’ of a particular fee, which is a
jargon in budgetary parlance? What was the harm if the proposed Amendment would
have straightaway provided for the submission of Application Fee or any other
Fee addressed to the PIO of concerned Public Authority just as the Central
Rules provide for the submission of any Fee to the Accounts Officer of the
concerned Public Authority? Even if the applicant is free to choose any mode of
payment out of many, he or she would, at the end of the day, surely fail to
submit the application fee and consequently the RTI application too, simply
because he knows not ‘Appropriate Head of Account’. Earlier in the past, the
applicant stumbled due to the burden of Treasury Challan, now he would simply
opt out from the RTI process thanks to the mysterious ‘Head of Account’. Thus the words ‘under the appropriate Head of Account’ should be dropped.
What other Amendments are
necessary?
It is our view that the Orissa RTI Rules should be amended
in the following light-
- Withdrawal of compulsory provision of Form-A for
Application, which requires
the copy of Voter’s Card to be attached as a proof of citizenship. This
provision not only deprives the citizens below 18 years of their right to make
an application for information, but also discloses personal details like name
of father/spouse, permanent address, age and sex etc. (as mentioned in the
voter card) in contravention of the Section 6(2) of the Act.
- Withdrawal of compulsory nature of Forms for 1st &
2nd Appeals and also of Appeal fees of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- ,which are simply ultra vires Section 27(2) of
the parent Act.
- Withdrawal of fees chargeable from BPL families towards cost of information in Orissa which is a
contravention of Section 7(5) of RTI Act.
- Withdrawal of Rule 12 of Orissa RTI Rules 2005, that obligates the appellant to bear expenditure
in connection with production of evidence or witness before the Commission. It
contravenes the Sections 19(5) and 20(1) which put the burden of proof solely
on the PIO.
- Withdrawal of Rule 10 of Orissa RTI Rules 2005 that requires an applicant for information
through Sample to compensate for the loss or damage if any caused to the
concerned structure during the sample collection. It is absolutely against the
letter and spirit of RTI Act.
- Amendment to Form-B (letter of intimation) for mentioning the detail calculation and
break-up of the total amount charged against the cost of information along with
the particulars of first appellate authority before who the applicant, if
aggrieved by the decision of PIO, may lodge appeal or complaint within a
time-limit. This is required under Section 7(3) of RTI Act.
- Amendment to Form-C (rejection), which cites such arbitrary grounds for
rejection of an Application as ‘Your Application is not complete in all
respects’, ‘Your identity is not satisfactory’ and ‘For any other reason’. All
these grounds are ultra vires the parent Act, which lays down clearly the
possible grounds of rejection such as in Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24.
- Correction of absurd expressions, such as Rule 2(1-c) of Orissa RTI Rules 2005, [“’fee’ means amount payable by the
applicant for obtaining any information under the provisions of sub-section (1)
of Section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 5 excluding the cost of
information”].
- Orissa Notification on Security & Intelligence
Agencies dated 29 Oct 2005 to be amended to provide for regular appointment of PIO, APIO and
Appellate Officer in each such agency for disclosing information relating to
cases of corruption or human rights violation in the manner as described under
Section 24(4) of parent Act.
- The present practice of the Commission in ignoring the
complaints around Section 4
(for instance, C.C.No.04/2006 filed by
Shri Taranisen Padhan & 3 Others decided on 20/06/2006 & C.C.No.05/2006
filed by Shri Jaganath Panda & 3 Others decided on 20/06/2006 ) being
patently ultra vires must be given up.
- The present practice of the Commission to arbitrarily
select the cases of their choice for urgent hearing on out-of-turn basis on the dubious plea of ‘public interest’ (http://orissasoochanacommission.nic.in/Imp.%20Adm%20Decision.html) must be given up.
- The present practice of the Commission in not issuing acknowledgement of the Complaints and
Appeals and in not mentioning the date of registration of each case in its
Decisions must be given up.
- The present practice of the Commission hijacking the
powers and obligations of Government as mentioned under Section 26 and neglecting their
quasi-judicial functions with the Government sitting idle round the year must
be given up and the role demarcation between the Government and the Commission
as clearly laid down in the parent Act must be strictly adhered to.
- The present practice of the Commission in making erratic
publication of translation
of Act and Rules and of FAQ must be given up and the said publications be
withdrawn from circulation immediately.
- The present practice of the Commission in respect of the
other statutory function i.e. drafting the Annual Report on the RTI scenario in
the State as per the
requirements of Section 25 being too deficient and error-ridden, there should
be a Committee of experts including RTI activists constituted to ensure the
authenticity and quality of draft reports before their submission to the
Government for onward presentation to the Assembly.
- The objectionable practice by the Commissioners in
producing legally defective decisions and in writing the decisions with erratic, rubbish
language must be stopped, and an
elaborate list of errata on the defective decisions already announced in the
past to be published, simply to restore the lost sanctity of a statutory
authority like Orissa State Information Commission.
- In keeping with the mandate of Section 4(4) of RTI Act,
Orissa Information Commission ought to bring out its decisions and draft Annual
Reports in the regional language ‘Oriya’ in addition to the existing
practice of writing in English, so as to make its writings easily intelligible
to the common people of Orissa. This is required under Section 4(4) of RTI Act.
Quite many States such as Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujurat are already practicing it.
- Orissa RTI Rules ought to provide for a
time-bound enquiry and disposal of each complaint made against the Information
Commissioners by the citizens before the Governor under Section 17 of
RTI Act.
- To avoid casual and lackadaisical practice by the public
authorities in Orissa in respect of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the
Act, the proposed Amendment should make it binding on each and every
public authority to follow ‘The Template for Information
Handbook’ prescribed for the purpose by the national nodal agency for
RTI Ministry of Personnel, Pension
and Public Grievances, GoI.
- The proposed Amendment must provide that the Governor,
who is as per Section 2(e-iv) of RTI Act Competent Authority in respect of
‘other authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution’
(e.g. State Election Commission, State Tribal Advisory Body and State Finance
Commission), must frame rules for setting up RTI regime in each such authority
in the manner prescribed under Section 28 of the Act.
- Any Rule or Amendment to Rule to be made by the State
under a central legislation like RTI Act, must pass the indispensable test of Section 23
of General Clauses Act 1897, which mandates the publication by the
Government of a notice along with the draft proposal to seek the public opinion
thereon before finalizing the draft Rules.
While
presenting the above bunch of Recommendations for your kind perusal, we request
you to take necessary measures for putting in place appropriate instruments in
the light of our recommendations in the interest of proper implementation of
RTI Act 2005 in our state.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Leading
Members of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
Pradip
Pradhan Tapan Mohapatra Usharani Behera Raj Kishor Singh
M-99378-43482 M-
94376-35267 M- 94371-89464 M-9338683595
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
VIM-316, Sailashree Vihar, C.S.Pur,
Bhubaneswar
E-mail- odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com, Website- www.orissarti.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref
No-OSAA/12/13 Date- 26.3.13
To
The Governor, Orissa
Raj Bhawan, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Seeking Dismissal of all Information
Commissioners of Odisha under Section 17 of RTI Act 2005
Sir,
Greetings from “Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan”.
We the RTI
Activists assembled under banner of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan in a
two-day demonstration programme organized at lower PMG on 18th and
19th March, 2013 bring
to your kind notice a number of facts about mal-functioning of Orissa Information
Commission and other allied matters seeking
your kind intervention and urgent
action.
a.
Enquiry into all Complaint cases filed under Section 17 of the RTI
Act
Since 2006,
more than 60 complaints have been lodged against Chief Orissa Information
Commissioner and State Information Commissioners under Section 17 of RTI Act on
the grounds of inefficiency, misbehavior, corruption, vested interests and
moral turpitude by the aggrieved citizens. As per the sub-section (1) of the
said Section, the Governor is required
to get such allegations enquired into by
the Supreme Court to ascertain their veracity, and then order the removal of
the concerned Commissioner if found guilty. But as yet, no statutory action has
been taken by the Governor on any such allegation.
From the information obtained through RTI
Act, it is learnt that series of Complaints filed so far have not been brought
to the notice of Governor. As a matter of fact, these Complaints have been
dealt with by an officer in the rank of Deputy Secretary, who without putting forth the received
complaints before the Governor have been continuing to forward the same
to the Dept. of I and PR, Govt. of Odisha which in turn used to
forward the same to the office of
Information Commission for necessary action. So, we request
your esteemed office to stop such
mindless treatment of the people’s allegations and to order enquiry as
per the law into all the allegations submitted so far under section 17 of the
RTI Act.
b.
Summer Vacation and Puja
vacation Leave taken by the Commission – an arbitrary and illegal
practice.
It has come to our notice that the Information Commissioners of the
state use to suspend hearing of the cases and
take leave for days together terming it as Summer Vacation Leave, Puja
Vacation leave and the like. Taking
leave as Summer Vacation or Puja vacation
is nowhere in practice in any office of quasi judicial bodies of the
country. As we know, Odisha Information Commission is a quasi-judicial body,
unlike the judicial bodies such as High Court or Supreme Court. No other kindred
Commissions like Odisha Human Rights Commission, State Commission for Women or
even Central Information Commission enjoy such statutory leave. So we request your esteemed office to enquire into the matter, issue show cause
to the Information Commissioners
and pending the results of
enquiry deduct the dues payable against
the days of leave from their monthly salary and
allowances. Such deduction, which is
perfectly in tune with the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ would send a right
signal to the concerned Commissioners who have taken an illegal and arbitrary
leave on their own and have thereby set up a bad precedent.
c.
Review of the tainted Decisions of Odisha Information Commission:
Most of the
decisions made by Odisha Information Commission since 2006 have gone against the letter and spirit of
RTI Act. For instance, the Information Commissioners’ erratic pronouncements such as ‘onus of proof lies on the
complainant’, ‘complaints on Section-4 don’t come under purview of adjudication
by the Commission’, ‘BPL persons are not exempt from fees against cost of
information’, and ‘absence of the complainant who has been summoned by
speed-post is not condonable’ are ultra vires the RTI Act 2005. Secondly,
the Information Commissioners did also deliver quite a number of decisions that ran counter to the
well-known position of RTI Act in respect of the concerned matters; for example
, information about property statement
of officers can not be disclosed. Besides,
they have also showered extra favours to some PIOs proved guilty and
exonerated them from any manner of penalty, harassed the complainants by
indefinite prolonging of the hearing process and showed insulting misdemeanor
towards the complainants. All the Commissioners also maintained an inexplicable
silence towards the fate of complainants, who were physically beaten, tortured
and even jailed by the corrupt officials for asking information that involved
the acts of their corruption. The complainants who felt aggrieved by the biased
decisions of the Commissioners in respect of their Complaints and Appeals, did
also lodge their allegations before the Governor on various grounds such as inefficiency and vested
interests. But till date, the Governor
has not enquired into any such allegation. It is therefore requested that the
Governor order a review by the Supreme
Court of all the indefensible decisions and orders issued by the Commission during
last 7 years, as required under Section 17 of RTI Act.
d.
Commission to be directed for
resuming the hearing of about 7000 cases, which were arbitrarily closed by the Commission without
any hearing.
Since the induction of Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra
as State Chief Information Commissioner,
all the three Information Commissioners including Mr.Mishra himself have
disposed and closed more than 7000 cases without holding any hearing thereon and have
simply remanded the same to the
respective First Appellate Authorities. The FAAs have neither heard the case
nor submitted any compliance report to the Commission. Though the Commission in its order of closure
formally invites a report from the
FAAs as regards the explanation from the
PIO about the denial of
information, the FAAs have neither submitted any follow-up report to the
Commission nor has the Commission taken
any follow-up penal action against the PIOs who still refuse to provide the
requested information. It is presumed that
there is a tacit understanding between the Commission and the corrupt bureaucrats not to disclose the critical and sensitive information, even
going against the RTI Act.
e.
Governor to order Odisha Information Commission not to squander away
the State Exchequer after vindictive litigation against RTI activists:
In order to
silence the RTI activists from making any criticism whatsoever about the
malfunctioning of Orissa Information Commission, Mr. D.N.Padhi, abusing his
office and authority as Chief OSIC, and of course in league with State
Commissioners unleashed a dirty course of vendetta against civil society activists only a few
days before his retirement, He employed
the good offices of Commission and State exchequer to institute a defamation
suit valued Rs.1 lakh against two well
known RTI activists. It is really an unprecedented move on the part of a
statutory authority that has been constituted to promote transparency and
accountability in various public authorities through RTI Act. Being afraid of exposure by the RTI activists
of their acts of malfeasance and corruption
, the entire Commission has
turned hostile and vindictive against any semblance of criticism against them.
Now it seems, the primary agenda of the Commission is to hound its critics into
silence by way of lodging false litigations against them, and that too
squandering away the money and manpower of the Commission in naked violation of
the mandate of RTI Act. The Governor is requested to ensure that no
Commissioner is ever allowed to abuse the name and resources of the Commission
to fulfill his personal vendetta.
f.
Governor to order the
Commission to write all decisions and correspondences in Odia language-
Under Section
4(4) of the RTI Act, all proactively disclosed information {section 4(1b)}
should be disseminated in local language. The decisions of the Commission as
these are in the nature of suo motu disclosures provided under Section 4 of the
Act, need to be written and published in Odia language. Again, it is astonishing that
the Information Commissioners are making all correspondences with
the semi-literate Complainants
and appellants of the State in English which creates a lot of hindrance for the people in following the letters
and decisions of the Commission.
Moreover, even the English language
used by the Commissioners in
their orders suffers from a lot of
grammatical and technical errors. The Information Commissioners also lack efficiency and skill to write the decisions properly.
So it is requested that the Information
Commissioners be directed to make all their correspondence and decisions
in Odia language, to enable the Odia knowing people to understand them.
g.
Governor to direct the State
Govt. and Odisha Information Commission not to collect fees from BPL people.
Under section
7(5) of RTI Act, the BPL people are exempted from paying any kind of fees like
application fee {section -6(1)}, fee for information {section-7(1)} and
additional fee for information {section 7(5) }. Even the Odisha RTI Rules has
no where prescribed the collection of fees towards the cost of information from
the BPL people. But the State Govt in collusion with the Commission has given an unwritten direction to all its
offices to collect the fees for
information from the BPL people. Even the Odisha Information Commission keeps
on arbitrarily collecting fees for information from the BPL people without any
rhyme or reason. As a result thousands of BPL people
could not exercise their right
under the Act. Even the
Information Commission which is empowered to protect the sanctity of the
Act is acting to subvert it by joining hands with State
Govt. and forcing the BPL people to pay the fees for information. It is therefore requested that both State
Govt. and Odisha Information Commission be directed to provide information to
the BPL people free of cost as per Section 7(5) of RTI Act.
We
request you to make an
enquiry into the above matters by the
Supreme Court as required under Section 17(1), or alternatively to dismiss all
the Information Commissioners of Odisha on the basis of the above mentioned
prima facie evidences as required under Section 17(3) of RTI Act 2005, and direct thereon the Government of Odisha to appoint a new batch of Information
Commissioners by way of following a transparent
procedure.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip
Pradhan Jayanat Das Tapan Padhi
State
Convener Member Member
M-99378-43482
Bikarm Swain Ganesh Dash
Member Member
Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan
Plot No- 393/2035, 2nd
Floor, Padmavati Vihar, Post- Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
E-mail-odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. No-
OSAA/48/15 Date- 26.2.15
To
Sri
S.C.Jamir
Hon’ble
Governor, Odisha
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Seeking direction to State Govt. to modify
the advertisement made for selection of Odisha Information
Commissioner inclusion of provision
of recommendation of names
for the post of Information Commissioner
Sir
It has come to our notice that on dated
13.2.15, the State Government in
Department of Information and Public Relation has released an
advertisement in website seeking publicly application for appointment to the
post of Information Commission by 16.3.15.
In fact, this advertisement will
deprive many sensible ad experienced
people from applying for the post of the Information Commission as
they may not apply for the said post.
There should be a provision of recommendation of name of anybody by the public for the post
of the Commission. Many state Govt. and Central Govt. has followed the
transparent procedure of making provision of seeking application and
recommendations for the post of the Commission while releasing advertisement. In 2013, the Govt. of Goa has made the
advertisement seeking application and recommendation of the names for the said
post.
So, we the
RTI Activists of Odisha request His Excellency to direct the State Govt. to
modify the advertisement and insert the provision of recommendation by public
for the post of Information Commissioner.
Thanking
you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan
Plot No- 393/2035, 2nd
Floor, Padmavati Vihar, Post- Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
E-mail-odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. No-
OSAA/49/15 Date- 26.2.15
To
Sri Madhu
Sudan Padhi
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
Department
of Information and Public Relation
Govt. of
Odisha
Bhubaneswar
Sub-Request to modify the advertisement made
for selection of Odisha Information Commissioner with inclusion of provision of
recommendation of names for the post of Information Commissioner
Sir
It has come to our notice that on dated
13.2.15, the State Government in
Department of Information and Public Relation has released an
advertisement in website seeking publicly application for appointment to the
post of Information Commission by 16.3.15.
In fact, this advertisement will
deprive many sensible ad experienced
people from applying for the post of the Information Commission as
they may not apply for the said post.
There should be a provision of recommendation of name of anybody by the public for the post
of the Commission. Many states Govt. and Central Govt. has followed the
transparent procedure of making provision of seeking application and
recommendations for the post of the Commission while releasing advertisement. In 2013, the Govt. of Goa has made the
advertisement seeking application and recommendation of the names for the said
post.
So, we the
RTI Activists of Odisha request you to
modify the advertisement and insert the provision of recommendation by public
for the post of Information Commissioner.
Thanking
you
Yours sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
M-9937843482
To
Sri
S.C.Jamir Date-30.4.15
Hon’ble
Governor, Odisha
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Sub- Seeking direction to State Govt. to quicken the appointment of Information
Commission through transparent procedure
Sir
It is widely recognised fact that transparency
and openness is key pre-requisites for good governance. The RTI legislation has
been an entitlement which has kept the intent of a free and open system of
governance afloat in our country. The multiple uses of the RTI Act to improve
government functioning are so huge that they defy enumeration. The
implementation of RTI Act is seen as the one stated intent of the government to
lay itself open to scrutiny and therefore accountability.
The
effective functioning of adjudicators under the RTI Act- the Information
Commission- is critical for the health of transparency regime in the
country. It is therefore a matter of
grave concern that the functioning of the State Information omission has been
pushed to a COMA in our state. The post of the State Information Commission and
Chief Information Commission is lying vacant since months together. Sri Pramod Kumar Mohanty, the lone
Information Commissioner who is about to retire in May, 2015 has stopped hearing. So, the functioning of
the Commission has been standstill with pendency of more than 5000 cases.
To ensure
appointment in the post of Information Commission, on dated 13.2.15, the State
Government in Department of Information
and Public Relation has released an advertisement in website seeking publicly
application for appointment to the post of Information Commission by
16.2.15. In fact, this advertisement will deprive many
sensible ad experienced people from
applying for the post of the Information Commission as they may not apply for the said post. There
should be a provision of recommendation of
name of anybody by the public for the post of the Commission. Many
states Govt. and Central Govt. has followed the transparent procedure of making
provision of seeking application and recommendations for the post of the
Commission while releasing advertisement.
In 2013, the Govt. of Goa has made the advertisement seeking application
and recommendation of the names for the said post.
Since
2006, the Civil Society Groups and RTI Activists have been demanding to adopt
detailed transparent procedure for appointment of Information Commissioners in
the state. But astonishingly, the State Govt.
has appointed Information
Commissioners without following any
transparent procedure. Due to favouritism and nepotism in the appointment, the Information
Commission has remained ineffective and useless
to deliver justice to the citizens. Within period of 10 years, the
Information commissioners have proved their inefficiency and ignorance about the law and miserably failed in discharging their duty.
So, we the
RTI Activists, Civil Society Groups of Odisha request His Excellency to direct
the State Govt. to issue detailed written
transparent procedure in
respect of appointment of the Commission, declare publicly name of the
applicants, their background,
experience and expertise, details of search Committee, inviting public view on
the final list for the post of Information Commission prior to sending the
name to the Governor of Odisha for
appointment etc., and modify the advertisement and include the
provision of recommendation by public for the post of Information Commissioner.
Thanking
you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
To
Sri S. C..Jamir Date-18.5.15
Governor, Odisha
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Subject: Request for reviewing the appointment of
Chairpersons and Members of different quasi judicial commissions for the state
of Odisha with special reference to the latest appointment of the Chief
information commissioner and Information Commissioner for Odisha.
Esteem sir
We the
following signatories who represent cross sections of Civil Societies Forums
and Networks of Odisha assembled in a daylong meeting at Redcross Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar on 17th May 2015 and unanimously adopted the following
resolution for seeking an appropriate remedial and proactive intervention from
your esteemed office at the earliest.
1.With a
deep anguish we seek to draw your kind attention to the recent series of
appointments made by the Govt. of Odisha to different quasi judicial
commissions which are in the eyes of the public are unacceptable due to lack of
a transparent and accountable procedure in respect of such appointment.
2.To be
more specific, we would like your esteemed office to review with immediate
effect the appointments already effected to such post as that of State
Disability Commissioner, State Women Commission, State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights.
3 To be more specific we hold the latest
appointment of two persons to the post of Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioner, Odisha as ultravirus the parent law itself. As you
might know the section 4(1)( C ) of Right to Information Act 2005 Says that the
concerned public authority is obligated to disseminate show motto all relevant
information relating to adoption of any important policy or decision that
effect public interest. As you might further know the selection committee for
the appointment to State Information Commission being a public authority within
the meaning of section 2 (h ) of RTI Act ought to have disclosed show-moto the
following categories of information prior to taking such decision-
a.
list of applications submitted by the
citizens in response to the official invitations along with their academic
qualifications, work experiences and achievement of eminence in specified
fields.
b.
The names of officers / sub-committee
if any set up to collate and shortlist the eligible candidates from among the
applicants.
c.
Particulars of criteria adopted to
select the final list of two persons to the exclusion of rest of the short
listed candidates.
d.
The details of the minutes of the
proceedings relating to the final decision on the appointment of two persons so
selected. To the best of our knowledge neither the state government not the
selection committee chaired by the Chief Minister himself has not complied with the above provision of
RTI Act 2005, on account of which their decision to appoint two persons of
their choice is arbitrary and a patent violation of the law itself.
4. As you
know further the above quoted provision of RTI Act 2005 i.e. Section 4 (1) (C )
is equally applicable to the State Government or for that matter to any
selection committee in respect of appointment of Chairperson and Members of
quasi-judicial commission or Commissioner, because all of them come under the
definition of public authority mentioned in section 4(2) (h) of RTI Act but, to
the best of our knowledge again, neither the state government nor any selection
committee what’s so ever has ever complied to the above mandate of RTI Act 2005
and as such the various appointments made to above mentioned commissions or to
the post of commissioner are arbitrary and ultravirus of the RTI Act 2005.
5. Under
this circumstances, we earnestly seek for your judicious intervention at the
earliest in the capacity of the appointing authority to ensure the following;
a.
Quashing the arbitrary decision of the
state government for appointment to the posts of Chairperson and Commissioner
of Odisha Information Commission on the ground of noncompliance of section 4(1)
C of RTI Act.
b.
Reviewing all the appointments made to the post of Chairperson and Members of
Odisha State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Odisha State Commission
for Women and Odisha State Commissioner for the People with Disability on the
ground of non compliance by the state government/selection committee to the
mandate of section 4(1) C of RTI Act.
Further,
ensuring that all the appointments to the quasi-judicial commissions in the
state are to be made by your esteem authority only after the state government /
selection committee has demonstrably complied with the overriding mandate of
law as mentioned in section 4(1) C of RTI Act 2005.
With
regards
Pradip
Pradhan , State Convener, OSAA, M-9937843482
Sudhir
Mohanty, Advocate, Odisha High Court
Akhand,
Human Rights Activist
Ajay Kumar
Jena, Ex-Govt. Chief Whip
Sachikant
Pradhan, Social Activist
Prof.
Jantrana Parikhit, President, Odisha Nagarik Samaj
Arun Jena,
Human Rights Activist
Pratap
sahu, Basti Surakhya Manch
Soubhagya
Parida
Mohammad
Ziauddin Mohammad
Santosh
Kumar Ranasigh
Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan
Plot No- 393/2035, 2nd
Floor, Padmavati Vihar, Post- Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
E-mail-
odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. No-
OSAA/28/15 Date- 17.6.15
To
Shri Nabin Pattnaik
Chief Minister-cum-Chairman,
Selection Committee (Appointment of Information Commissioners under RTI Act)
State Secretariat, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Ensure a transparent process for
selecting State Chief Information Commissioner
Sir,
Odisha
Soochana Adhikar Abhijan is a state-level platform of Civil Society Groups and
RTI Activists spearheading campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in
Odisha.
I, on behalf
of OSAA would like to put forth the
following matter in the interest of a
transparent procedure that needs to be followed for appointing a person to the post of State Chief Information
Commissioner.
Since last
ten years, we have been observing that the
Selection Committee headed by the
Chief Minister has recommended some persons
as State Chief Information
Commissioner or State Information Commissioner without following a transparent procedure. We also observe that the
performance of the Commissioners so appointed is not satisfactory even at a
minimal level. Delayed and lingering hearings, giving much less time to
hearing, low disposal rate, and pendency of a huge backlog of cases are only a
few instances of the disheartening performances of the said Commissioners. The RTI activists in the state have already
expressed their discontent against the
malfunctioning of Odisha Information Commission, caused by the
incompetent and complacent Commissioners, and have raised this on various
occasions including submission of memoranda to
Hon’ble Governor in this regard.
We have been demanding before you to
follow the transparent procedure for appointment to the post of Chief Information Commissioner and
State Information Commissioner over several years last.
In the
recently concluded selection process for appointment of two State Information
Commissioners, despite strong public demand raised across the state, the State
Govt. went with their own agenda of
selecting candidates without following any transparent procedure, resulting in
widespread resentment among the
people at large. This secretive and non-transparent method has only led to selection of inefficient
and inexperienced people for the
highly important posts of Information Commissioners.
As you might
know, as per Section 15(4) of RTI Act the Chief State Information Commissioner
and State Information Commissioners are required to act independently and
autonomously ‘without being subjected to directions by any other authority’
while adjudicating the appeals and complaints of the aggrieved citizens and delivering justice to them. All this
requires the persons having efficiency, experience and expertise in different
related fields to be appointed to the posts of Chief State Information Commissioner
or State Information Commissioner, as the case may be.
Besides
as per
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Selection Committee formed
under Section 15(3) of the Act
is a public authority which
should ought to declare suomotu
on the website and otherwise the details of its functions, procedures and
decisions as required under Section 4(1b) of the Act. Moreover, the Section 4(1
c) of the Act mandates the suo motu disclosure by such a Selection Committee of
all the information related inter alia to the manner of selection sufficiently
prior to the selection itself. But we have to say regretfully that the
Selection Committee has never acted in accordance with the above provisions of
law.
We need not
remind you Sir, the RTI Act itself being a law dedicated to the cause of
bringing transparency and accountability to the entire system of governance in
the country, the Selection Committee which is supposed to play the role of a
prime mover in the whole RTI dispensation ought to model its conduct as per the
letter and spirit of the law in respect of appointment of Information
Commissioners, who are required to serve as the custodians of this historic
legislation.
Under the circumstances, we request your kind
honour to strike an exemplary difference to the patently questionable practices
adopted by the Selection Committee in the past,
by way of putting in place a demonstrably transparent procedure for selecting the Chief
State Information Commissioner from among the interested candidates, basing
upon merit coupled with a track-record of citizen-friendly conduct and
performances in the past.
Thanking you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-9937843482
Copy to
: The Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Department of Information and Public Relation, Govt. of Odisha, Sampark Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar
Odisha Soochana
Adhikar Abhijan
Plot No- 393/2035, 2nd
Floor, Padmavati Vihar, Post- Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
E-mail-odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. No- OSAA/45/15 Date- 18.2.15
To
Sri S. C. Jamir
Governor, Odisha
Raj Bhawan
Bhubaneswar
Sub-
Request to direct appropriate authority to seize passport of Tarun Kanti
Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner and direct the State Govt. to
conduct enquiry into allegation of land illegally grabbed by him in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar
Dear Sir
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan is a
state-level forum of RTI Activists and Social Action Groups spearheading
campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in Odisha.
It has
come to our notice that Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information
Commissioner had submitted his resignation
to Hon’ble Governor, Odisha in the first week of January’2015 and Hon’ble Governor has
accepted his resignation and asked him to continue up to 4th March
2015. Sri Mishra while giving an
interview in electronics media has expressed to visit USA to stay there.
After
getting this news, we the RTI Activists are disturbed a lot. During last 4 years of his tenure as Chief
Information Commissioner, we have appraised His Excellency several times by
submitting series of memoranda and filling complaints under section 17 of the
RTI Act about his mal-functioning and anti-RTI activities like giving direction
to the BPL people to pay the fees for information (exempted under RTI Act),
misbehaving and threatening of arrest to complainant-citizens by calling police
during hearing, providing copy of decisions in English to illiterate citizens,
protecting erring PIOs etc. We have also
apprised His Excellency that Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra has illegally acquired 3
plots and another additional plot from Dept. of General Administration, BDA and
CDA by filling false affidavit in his name and name of his wife. Sri Jayant Das, RTI Activist had already
filed complaint to His Excellency on dated 24.12.13 demanding ouster of Sri
Mishra from his post and demanding legal proceedings against him. Similarly, on 12.9.14, Sri Bijay Parida,
Convener of Odisha Jana Adhikar Parishad filed an FIR against Tarun Kanti
Mishra, in Baragada police station demanding enquiry into his land scam.
Similarly, on 1.11.14, the representatives of 28 Social Action Groups have submitted memorandum by holding Dharana
before Raj Bhawan demanding enquiry into land scam of Tarun Kanti Mishra.
As per
Report of CAG on General and Social Sector (Volume-2), huge irregularities and
illegalities and undue benefit in respect of allotment of land has taken place
during 2009 and 2010 when Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra was Chief Secretary. CAG has already exposed corruption and
irregularities in respect of discretionary allotment of multiple plots and
acres of valuable plot at throw away price.
So, Tarun
Kanti Mishra during his tenure as special secretary of GA Dept and Chief
Secretary, Odisha has committed a series of illegalities and adopted corrupt
practice to take multiple plots in name of his wife Sunanda Mishra and
facilitated to allot precious land to private companies,
hotels, private educational institutions at throw away price.
It needs
to be mentioned here that the Task Force led by Dr. Taradatt which was
presented to Govt. on 4th Nov. 2014 has recommended to Govt. for preparation of list of multiple allotment
of lands by GA dept in pre-1995
to 2014 and take against
the people who have taken multiple plots by filling false affidavit. The State Govt. in its Action Taken Report
has mentioned that the State Vigilance would enquire into the matter. Now the state vigilance have already started
enquiry and Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra is under scanner.
So, in
order to save Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra from vigilance investigation and
interrogation, a secret deal has been hatched between State Govt. and Sri Mishra to allow him to leave the country. So, keeping it in view, we humbly appeal you
to direct the appropriate Authority to seize passport of Tarun Kanti Mishra and conduct enquiry into illegal occupation
of multiple plots by him.
Thanking
you
Yours
sincerely
Pradip
Pradhan Biswajit
Mohanty
State
Convener Member,
transparency International
M-9937843482
M-
9437024265
Rohan Mohanty Sudhir
Mohanty Bijay Parida
RTI Activist Advocate Social Activist
Odia Yuba Manch
Sachikant Pradhan Arun Swain
RTI
Activist RTI
Activist
To,
The
Governor, Orissa
Raj
Bhavan, Bhubaneswar
Sub:
Complaint under Section 17 of RTI Act 2005 against Mr.T.K. Mishra, Chief Orissa
Information Commissioner for his dishonor to Oriya language, practice of double
standards, dubious nexus with corrupt officials, threatening and abusing
misbehavior with complainants and naked violations of RTI law.
Sir,
I am a BPL
person from the district of Nayagarh in Orissa, and also semi-literate having
no knowledge of English. However I am a frequent user of RTI Act for the
benefit of my area and as well the poor and disadvantaged sections of society
to which I belong. As you know, the RTI Act 2005 primarily aims at bringing
about transparency in administration of the Government and thereby to root out
corruption from public life. But Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, who has been appointed
as Chief Orissa Information Commissioner is completely incapable of practicing
or enforcing the above objective of RTI Act. Situation has now come to such a
pass that no officer or employee of the Government cares a fig for any of his
orders, because he himself is found to be flouting his own order and also
provisions of law with impunity. Thus, he only serves to cover up the incidence
of corruption in Government offices where it runs on a rampant scale. Unless a
drastic action is taken against Mr.Mishra, his present style of functioning in
the capacity of Chief OSIC is sure to cause irreparable damage to the cause of
RTI Act and thereby worsen further the corruption scenario in the State in days
to come. In corroboration of such apprehension I would like to draw your kind
attention to the following facts in respect of Mr.Mishra’s gross misconduct,
which are entirely based upon my direct experience with Mr.T.K.Mishra as Chief
OSIC.
(2) Before pointing out the specific
instances of how Mr.T.K.Mishra has conspicuously failed to enforce his own
order it would be worthwhile to understand what is expected of him in the
capacity of Chief SIC as per the RTI Act. It is incumbent on the Chief State
Information Commissioner to hear the appeals and complaints lodged by the
aggrieved RTI applicants so as to order the defaulter PIOs to provide them the
information wrongly held back and penalize the said PIOs, if proved guilty, for
any delay or obstacles created by them in furnishing of the requested
information. Such being the position of RTI law, it is further incumbent on the
Chief SIC to note down patiently and in detail what the appellant or
complainant wants to say in course of a hearing, and also to explain to him in
clear and simple language, the findings and results of the hearing including
the decision arrived at. In this context it is important to remember that the
Section 6(1) of RTI Act has given the option to any person to make his RTI application
in regional language inter alia, and Section 7(9) requires a PIO to provide the
information in the form in which it is sought by the applicant, which obviously
includes the preference of the applicant to receive the requested information
in regional language. Moreover, Section 4(4) of the Act enjoins upon each
public authority including of course Orissa Information Commission to
disseminate all material in local language. Thus Orissa Information Commission
has a bounden duty to hold the hearings, write the decisions and conduct all
correspondences with the members of public in Oriya the regional language of
the State.
(3) Mr.T.K.Mishra, while he was the Chief
Secretary to Government of Orissa, had issued an Office Order No.237/CS dated
28.10.2009 to all Principal Secretaries/ Secretaries/ Special Secretaries of
the Departments of the State Government to use Oriya language in connection
with all official functions and programmes (Annex-1). Subsequently, based upon
that order the Director Institute of Oriya Language in his circular letter no.
1634 (30) dt. 22.12.2009 issued to all District Collectors reminded them about
the urgency of using Oriya language in all governmental activities with which
the members of public are concerned (Annex-2). But ironically,
Mr.T.K.Mishra himself has remained the most audacious violator of his own
order, because he never afterwards used Oriya in his orders, circulars or
correspondences, either in the then capacity of Chief Secretary or in the
present capacity of Chief Orissa Information Commissioner. In a situation where
Mr.Mishra being the head of above mentioned public authorities didn’t abide by
his own order, why should other commissioners or officers sub-ordinate to him
obey the same? As a result, except only a few offices at lower level, no public
authority including Orissa Information Commission headed by Mr.T.K.Mishra is
found to be using Oriya language in official business. Moreover, even though I
as a complainant have been urging Mr.T.K.Mishra Chief OIC both orally and in
writing to conduct hearing, write decisions and make correspondences in Oriya
language, he has brutally ignored it, ironically going against his own order.
(4) Because of my persistent demand before
Mr.T.K.Mishra Chief OIC for conducting Commission’s business in Oriya and also
because of my continuous protest against some of his objectionable conduct, he
has been adopting a vindictive attitude against me in recent months. For
instance, in the Complaint Case No.3/2008 (against the failure of PIO to supply
me the information relating to construction of a Well at Lingiribari under
Singar Palli G.P. in Nua Gaon Block in Nayagarh District), the then Chief OSIC
Mr.D.N.Padhi after hearing the parties had reluctantly decided, and that too
after persistent demand by me, to impose penalty against the defaulter PIO and
therefore issued a show-cause notice to him to that effect. But subsequently,
Mr.T.K.Mishra, who succeeded Mr.Padhi in his place, took an arbitrary decision
in the hearing dated 29.12.2010 to exonerate the said PIO from any manner of
penalty basing upon the make-believe report of the PIO himself, and without
taking into account the points mentioned in my written submissions.
(5) In another instance, having failed to
receive any information from PIO DRDA Nayagarh in response to my RTI
application dated 3.10.2008, I had lodged a Complaint before OSIC under Section
18 of the Act. After a series of hearings spanning a prolonged period the then
Chief OSIC Mr.Padhi had perforce decided to impose penalty against the guilty
PIO. But subsequently Mr.T.K. Mishra after he became the Chief OIC, called me
to a hearing, but on seeing me flared up against me in a bad temper. Without
going through any papers, he furiously charged me, “Why have you come here?
Have you made first appeal?” Showing the Section 18 of RTI Act 2005 I submitted
that one could, if he wished so, lodge a direct complaint before the
Commission. Reacting very rudely against me Mr.Mishra completely lost his cool
and hurled at me threatening and abusive utterances in English - “Do you know?
I can straight away throw you behind the bars. I shall not hear any single case
of yours. Do whatever you like against me, in High Court or Supreme Court. But
be sure, you can’t do anything against me”. I strongly feel that it is a case
of gross misconduct by Mr.Mishra in capacity of Chief OIC to use threatening
abuses in English against me knowing pretty well that being a semiliterate BPL
person I don’t follow English at all. Further it is also illegal on his part to
arbitrarily close my case without giving me an opportunity of hearing and
simultaneously exonerating the guilty PIO from any manner of penalty- all out of a strong feeling of vendetta
against me.
(6) Still in another instance (Complaint
Case No. 932/2009) I had submitted an RTI application dated 5.11.2008 to the
PIO of ICDS Daspalla, but having received no response from there I had lodged a
Complaint to OSIC under Section 18. The first hearing of my complaint case was
held on 29.9.2010. Though there is no provision in RTI Act for a PIO to be
represented through a lawyer in the hearing of a case, the said PIO sent a
lawyer to the hearing of the case and the then Chief OIC Mr.D.N.Padhi had
initially accepted him despite my vehement protest against such acceptance.
However, under the impact of my strong protest Mr.Padhi had warned the lawyer
not to appear in any future hearing on behalf of the PIO. But afterwards when
the next hearing was held by Mr.T.K.Mishra successor to Mr.Padhi in the
capacity of Chief OSIC, Mr.Mishra going against the law accepted the
representation by the lawyer, and that too despite my oral and written protest
against this illegal practice. Moreover, Mr.Mishra in course of the hearing
used to talk in English with the PIO’s lawyer so that I couldn’t follow the
meaning of the proceedings. Despite my repeated request to Mr.Mishra not to
talk in English during the proceedings in view my ignorance of that language,
he deliberately persisted in doing so.
(7) In a subsequent hearing dated 5.4.2011
Mr.Mishra issued an order saying that the concerned PIO should, within 10 days
of this order, provide me with information running into 1100 pages, though he
knew pretty well that the information sought for by me didn’t require so many
pages. However, about two months is going to elapse since Mr.Mishra ordered the
PIO to give me the 1100-page information, but not a single page of information
has been furnished by the concerned PIO to me as of today. It seems either there
is a secret nexus of vested interests between the lawyer of PIO and Mr.Mishra
Chief OIC to suppress the particular bunch of crucial information that I sought
for, or Mr.Mishra is utterly powerless to take action against even petty
officers who nakedly violate his order. Be that as it may, taking into account
the entire behavior code of Mr.Mishra in this case, such as entertaining the
representation of the PIO by a lawyer, behaving very cordially with that lawyer
but very rudely with me, deliberately talking with the lawyer in English during
the proceedings ignoring my request to the contrary, and moreover conniving
with the naked violation by the PIO of his order, it seems, he is not only
killing RTI Act cold-bloodedly in the guise of a Chief State Information
Commissioner, but also instrumental in suppression of any information relating
to rampant corruption in government offices.
(8) Another blatant instance of illegal
orders issued by Mr.T.K.Mishra Chief OIC with an ill-motive to shield corrupt
officials from the risk of exposure through RTI is his outright, arbitrary and
unilateral manner of disposal in respect of my Complaint Case No. 1720/2010.
Though the Act has empowered an aggrieved RTI user to approach the Commission
straight away under its Section-18 (Complaint) and the Commission is as such
bound to hear the concerned parties before disposing of a case, Mr.Mishra going
against the letter and spirit of the Act dismissed the above Complaint Case
without giving me any opportunity of hearing, and simultaneously directing me
to exhaust the First Appeal and then only come to the Commission through the
Second Appeal. By such an illegal practice, Mr.Mishra has further
procrastinated and complicated the process of disposal of any complaint case.
Similarly, I had lodged a Complaint Case against PIO of District Labour Office,
Nayagarh (CC No. 2222/ 2010), which Mr.Mishra disposed of in the above-said
illegal manner.
(9) To sum up, Mr.T.K.Mishra as Chief OIC
-
- has conspicuously failed to abide
by his own order issued by him in the erstwhile capacity of Chief Secretary
Orissa in respect of use of Oriya language in official business and also to
uphold the provision mentioned in Section 4(4) of RTI Act in respect of use of
local language by every public authority;
- deliberately indulges in the
illegal practice of entertaining the representation of a PIO through a lawyer
in the hearings before the Commission;
- intentionally takes resort to
English language in course of hearings so as to keep the concerned appellant/
complainant (not knowing English) ignorant of the ongoing proceedings;
- is utterly incapable of monitoring
and disciplining the guilty PIOs who nakedly violate his orders issued on
disposal of a case;
- violates Section-18 of RTI Act
himself by disposing of a complaint case without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the complainant and by remanding it to the first appeal;
- uses threatening abuses in English
language at the complainant (such as, I can send you to jail) in course of a
hearing so as to silence him;
- arbitrarily closes the case of a
complainant without giving him an opportunity of hearing, simply motivated by
vendetta;
- arbitrarily exonerates guilty PIOs
from any manner of penalty without any speaking order;
- has built up a nexus of vested
interests with corrupt officials active in various public authorities as
evident from his blind support to the guilty PIOs responsible for denial of
crucial corruption related information to the RTI applicants.
(10) Under the circumstances, I fervently
pray before you to take the following disciplinary steps in respect of
Mr.T.K.Mishra Chief Orissa Information Commissioner as warranted under Section
17 of RTI Act-
- To
order the probe by Supreme Court into the real facts behind the above referred
cases grossly mishandled by Mr.T.K.Mishra as required under Section 17(1) of
the Act;
- Pending
the completion of the above mentioned probe, to suspend Mr.T.K.Mishra from his
office as required under Section 17(2) of the Act;
- To
order the OSIC to conduct the proceedings of its hearings, issue its orders and
decisions and make all correspondence in regional language Oriya as required
under Section 4(4) of the Act;
- To
review all the decisions/orders made by Mr.T.K.Mishra as OSIC in which he has
arbitrarily exonerated the guilty PIOs from penalty and deprived the
complainants of the opportunity of hearing before disposal of the concerned
cases as required under the Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure)
Rules 2006;
- To
provide the undersigned complainant immediately with all information which he
was entitled to receive, but which has been withheld from him by the concerned
corrupt public authorities in connivance of Mr.T.K.Mishra as Chief OSIC;
- To
explore all dimensions including the vigilance angle of the dubious nexus that
is suspected to exist between the corrupt officials and Mr.T.K.Mishra as Chief
OSIC; and
- Order
all the Commissioners of OSIC to behave politely with complainants and never to
apply any language of threat or abuse against them during the hearings.
Looking
forward to your intervention at the earliest,
Sd/- Kunja
bihari Patra, Date. . . . .
Address- Dasapalla, Nayagarh
Copy to-
Mrs.Prativa Patil, President, Rastrapati Bhavan, New
Delhi
Chief Justice, Orissa High Court, Cuttack
No comments:
Post a Comment