ଉକ୍ତ ଲେଖାଟି ମୁଁ ଜେଲରେ ଥିଲାବେଳେ ଓସାର ସଦସ୍ୟ ତଥା ସୂଚନା ଅଧିକାର କର୍ମୀ ତଥା ଯୁବ ଆଇନଜୀବୀ ପ୍ରକାଶ ଦାସ ସାମାଜିକ ଗଣ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ପୋଷ୍ଟ କରିଥିଲେ |
date- 18.11.23
ଅଭିଯାନର ପ୍ରୟାସ ଓ ପ୍ରତିଫଳ Efforts & outcomes of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
ଉକ୍ତ ଲେଖାଟି ମୁଁ ଜେଲରେ ଥିଲାବେଳେ ଓସାର ସଦସ୍ୟ ତଥା ସୂଚନା ଅଧିକାର କର୍ମୀ ତଥା ଯୁବ ଆଇନଜୀବୀ ପ୍ରକାଶ ଦାସ ସାମାଜିକ ଗଣ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ପୋଷ୍ଟ କରିଥିଲେ |
date- 18.11.23
Media
Projection of Mr. V. K. Pandian as No.1 IAS officer does not hold any
documentary Proof. It is construed as False Propaganda, exposed under RTI
Dear friends
In March, 2016, the Odia Daily newspaper “ Sambad” covered
a front paper news Comparative
analysis of performance of few IAS
officers following their ACRs and projecting Mr. V.K. Pandia as No. 1 IAS officer in rank among all IAS
and IPS officers scoring 10 marks in each Indicator taken up for the study. Accordingly its Sister Media “Kanak TV” covered same story showing
the documents of their performance report which is still available in “YouTube”.
1. Having seen the news covered with show of copy of documents in Media and out of curiosity, I had filed RTI application dt. 26.3.16 to the
PIO, Dept. of General Administration and Public Grievances, Govt. of Odisha
seeking the following information to ascertain the fact of reporting.
i.
Copy of Annual Confidential Reports (
CCR) of last three years of Sri
V.Kartikeyan Pandian, IAS, secretary to
Chief Minister, Odisha, Sri Upendra Nath Behera, IAS, Addl.Chief
Secretary, Odisha, Sri Bijay Sharma, IPS, D.G. Crime Branch etc. which has
already released to media.
ii. Details of procedure followed for preparation of
ACR and approval made by the appropriate authority.
iii. Details of criteria taken up and procedure
followed for assessing career / performance of an IAS /IPS officer which
reflected in ACR.
iv. Details of ACR Reporting Authority for different
type of IAS and IPS officers at different level in the administrative set
up of the State.
v. Details of legal provisions for disclosure of ACR
or maintaining its secrecy.
2.
On
denial of information by the PIO and First Appellate Authority, I made Second Appeal in the office of Odisha Information
Commission on 8.6.16. praying for supply
of information and imposing penalty on PIO for
denying information under section 20 of the RTI Act.
3.
The
Commission registered my case as Second Appeal Case No. 1567/2016 and started hearing of the case from 18.10.19 onwards , after around 3 years of filling Second Appeal. The
Commission heard six times and passed the order on 10.2.20 which is of bad
taste.
4.
On first day of hearing (18.10.19), the
Commission directed the PIO to show cause
for not providing information as per law, not explaining reasons of refusal on
point-wise information, not making any
effort to give the details under section
4(1)(b) of the RTI Act about norms, guidelines, notification. The Commission
also directed Special Secretary and Principal Secretary, Dept. of GA &
PG to submit status Report updated till 30.9.2019 with regard to section
4 of the RTI Act by taking notes of
section 4(1)(b)(v)(vii)(xiv) & (xv)
and Secion-4(1)(c )(d) & (e ) .
5.
On
day of Second Hearing ( 8.11.19.) I made a
submission stating that information
relating to ACR of IAS and IPS officers has not
been provided to me by the PIO
citing the ground section 8(1)(j)
& section 11 of the RTI Act.
Section 8(1)(j)
stipulates “exemption of information from disclosure which relates to
personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may
be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
Section
11(1) says “Where a Central Public
Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request
made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and
has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice
to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the
third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the
information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall
be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that
except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure
may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any
possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”
My further argument before the Commission is
as follows
a.
On the ground of denial of
information, I argued that the PIO has not sought opinion of third parties
before taking such decision of non-disclosable of information. So, the PIO
should be directed to issue notice to the third parties to give
their opinion relating to
supply of ACR under section 11 of the
RTI Act. Without taking opinion of third
parties, the PIO can not deny the information.
b.
As the
information sought for is already
in public domain and news glorifying
their performance has been widely covered in both Print and Electronic media, the
said information must be provided in
public interest to understand
performance of No.1. IAS officer under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
6.The PIO made
counter-submission referring decision of Delhi High Court in W.P. ( C ) No.
4735/11 wherein the Court has
observed that the ACRs can not be
disclosed to any other employee as that
would constitute third party
information. The PIO further submitted referring decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande VS CIC and others ( SLP ( C ) No. 27734/2012
wherein it was as under
“ The performance of an employee/officer in an
organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and
normally those aspects are governed by
the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the
disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual”. The Supreme Court further held that such
information could be disclosed only if it would serve a large public interest”.
I further countered submission of the
PIO that
following this judgement of the
Supreme Court, the information about APR
of Mr. V.K.Pandia must be disclosed in
public interest which is already
available in public domain.
7.The PIO also submitted that
the GA Dept. had neer shared
this information sought for on ACRs/PARs( Performance Appraisal
Reports) of any officers to any media / TV channel because
such documents are purely confidential in nature.
8. In respect of information about details
of ACR Reporting authority , detaisl of criteria taken up and procedure
followed for assessing career , the PIO supplied copy of All India Civil Conduct Rules.
9. While
passing final order , the Commission
opined that in the instant case the appellant
has not made a bonafide public interest in seeking information the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of the individual U/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The case was disposed without any direction
for supply of information.
Analysis of the Case:
Why it is a tasteless order ?
a. From
the very beginning of the hearing of the
case, I have persistently made
submission that as the PIO has
rejected RTI application on the ground
of section 11 without following procedure, he should be directed to issue
notice to all IAS officers seeking
their opinion about disclosure of their performance report. But the
Commission Smt. Sashi Prava
Bindhani consciously remained silent
and never directed the PIO to
follow the procedure of section 11(1).
Rather just mentioned in her order “ the PIO could have taken the views of the
third parties in this particular case”.
b. Smt.
Bindhani did not make legal interpretation of the law i.e., Section 8(1)(h), when I have been
constantly pleading for disclosure of
information by producing Kanak TV Visual
which is already available in youtube. As Smt. Is not
well-versed about RTI Act and its legal
interpretation, she deliberately
refrains from doing her commission’s job
and passed speaking order.
c.
As the PIO stated that the said information has never been
disclosed to any media, the Million
Dollar question is raised how did Sambad and kanak TV get
this document ?
d.
At last it
is concluded that the Projection of Mr. V.K.Pandia as No. 1
IAS does not substantiate any logic or
ground to believe. The People must
reject it.
e.
Through out hearing of the case, Smt.
Bindhani persuaded the PIO for updating
the suo moto disclosure of information under section 4(1)(b)(c )(d) of the RTI
Act. Till last, the PIO did not
care to comply. This matter was also not
related to my case. I got
astonished Why did the Commission bring
this issue within ambit of hearing of my case. The whole exercise of Smt.
Bindhani ended in fiasco. The Commission
also did not pass any order in its decision. Till today, the GA dept. has not
updated suo moto disclosed information.
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Dt-27.5.20
25 crores Paid to Hockey India towards Organisation of Hockey World Cup
-2018
Dear friends
In 2019, just
after Hockey World Cup was over, multiple RTI Applications were filed
in the Department of Sports
and Youth services to
access information about management of Hockey
World Cup, Event Management , fund paid
to Hockey India, donors
for HWC -2018, sponsoring organization etc. The
PIOs of the Department systematically
denied to supply the
information taking different
pleas . In view of repeated denial of information,
series of Second Appeals and Complaints were filed
in the Information commission. Hearing
of all the cases have started
from 2022. With order of the
Commission, the PIO and referred
PIOs of S&YS have
started supplying information. This information exposed
how huge amount of
money given to Hockey India
and expenses made
for various program.
From the information supplied so far , It was
found that Hockey India was provided
Rs. 25 crore for
organizing event of Hockey World
Cup-2018 in Odisha . During
Hockey event , many prominent
film stars were
invited for hosting events and
performing cultural events. The question of how much was being paid to them
was raised in public domain . keeping
it in view , RTI query was made
about details of activities/ works undertaken / organized by Hockey India for
World Cup amount paid
to each . The PIO on
dated 30.5.23 has replied
that “ the total Hockey Cup was organized
by Hockey India in consultation
with Govt. of Odisha . The particular activities
taken up with Hockey India
is not available with Govt. ( Sports and YS Dept.).
It means
Hockey India, sponsored Event Manager for Hockey World Cup has
disbursed the amount out of
Rs. 25 crore paid by Govt. of Odisha to all
the activity undertaken anf fees
to the Film stars .
RTI was
filed to Hockey
India, New Delhi seeking information about details of utilization of fund
for Hockey World Cup organized in
Bhubaneswar, capital city of
Odisha. The Hockey India
did not disclose the
information without citing any bonafide reasons.
Paid to Hockey India towards Organisation of Hockey World Cup -2018
Sl. No |
Items |
Amount |
1 |
Air
Cargo transaction of Hockey World Cup
-2018 |
Rs. 48,457 |
2 |
Supply of T Shirt |
Rs.
92,138 |
3 |
Reimbursement of different items used
during HWC -2018 |
Rs.
29,08,356 |
4 |
Cost of Replica Trophy |
Rs.
1,44,260 |
5 |
Cost of
Replica Trophy |
Rs.
2,89,520 |
6 |
Half
time activities |
Rs.
24,16,213 |
7 |
Execution
of different Works |
Rs.
2,56,86,814 |
8 |
Accommodation
charges of Indian Hockey Team |
Rs.
21,00,000 |
9 |
Procurement of cost
of Hockey Booklet & Media |
Rs.
24,42,600 |
10 |
Cost of Uniform charges |
Rs.
51,25,092 |
11 |
Hosting
charges of HWC-2018 |
Rs.
12,50,00,000 |
12 |
Hosting
charges of HWC-2018 |
Rs.
7,50,00,000 |
|
Total
|
Rs.24,12,52,850 |
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 16.6.23
~ûR_êe
Ròfäûe aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe 200 ùKûUò Uuûe Kkû_[e
fêUþ iµKðùe
bòRòfû^þie Z\« eòù_ûUð ùfûKûdêqu ^òKUùe \ûLf
~ûR_êe Ròfäûe Z}ûkú^ Ròfäû_ûk Z[û
^a^ò~êq RM^Üû[ c¦òe _âgûi^e cêLý _âgûiK e¬^ Kêcûe \ûiu iùcZ ajê _âgûi^òK
@]ôKûeú I LYò ùa_ûeúcûù^ Gjò fêUþùe iµéq [ôaûeê Raûa \ûLf _ûAñ ùicû^uê
ùfûKûdêqu KûeY \gðû@ ù^ûUòiþö iÚû^úd aò]ûdK gâú _âYa aka«eûd, gûiK \ke ù^Zûu
ù^ZéZßùe ùjûA[ôaû Gjò LUò fêUþ \ßûeû eûRùKûhe 1000 ùKûUò Uuû lZò ùjûAQò ùaûfò
@bòù~ûM
bêaù^gße, Zû 05û05û : ~ûR_êe
Ròfäûe ]cðgûkû Zjiòf ^òKUiÚ aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe \úNð\ò^ ]eò LYò ùa_ûeúu \ßûeû
Pûfò[ôaû ùa]WÿK Kkû_[e ùPûeòe Z\« Keò eûRý bòRòfû^þi Gjò ùPûeú ù~ûMê 200 ùKûUò
Uuûe eûRÊ lZò ùjûAQò ùaûfò ùaûfò GK eòù_ûUð ùfûKûdêqu ^òKUùe \ûLf KeòQòö
ùfûKûdêq Gjò eòù_ûUð @û]ûeùe Gjò jeòfêUþùe iµéq Z}ûkú^ Ròfäû_ûk eTþR^ Kêcûe
\ûi, _ìaðZ^ ]cðgûkû Zjiòf\ûe _âbûi Kêcûe ùajêeû, gâúcZú gúZk @MâIßûf, iùeûR
Kêcûe _Šû, _ìaðZ^ eûRÊ ^òeúlK gâú aúeKòùgûe cjûeYû, iêgû« Kêcûe ÊûAñu iùcZ
@ûVRY fòRþ]ûeúuê Zû 23û06û2023eòL c¤ûùe Raûa \ûLf _ûAñ ù^ûUòiþ Rûeò
KeòQ«òö aòùRWò ieKûeùe ~ûR_êe Ròfäûe AZòjûiùe Gjû iaêVûeê aWÿ ]eYe fêUþ ùaûfò
iìP^û @]ôKûe Kcðú gâú _â\ú_ _â]û^ KjòQ«òö
GVûùe
iìP^û ù~ûMý ù~, 2016 ciòjûeê aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe Pûfò[ôaû aýû_K Kkû_[e fêUþ iµKðùe
iìP^û @]ôKûe Kcðú gâú iùaðgße ùajêeû iað_â[ùc ùfûKùfûP^Kê @ûYò[ôùfö iìP^û
@]ôKûe @ûA^ akùe KUKiÚòZ Wò.G`þ.I.u Kû~ðýûkdeê còkò[ôaû iìP^û @^ê~ûdú, 890 GKe
Rcò C_ùe @aiÚòZ Gjò aòQûLŠò iõelòZ Rwf c¤ùe Kkû_[e LYò fòRþ ù\aû_ûAñ ùK¦â ieKûe
ùKøYiò @^êcZò ù\A^ûjû«òö LYò cû`ò@ûcûù^ ùa@ûA^ bûùa gjgj U^þ Kkû_[e ùPûeò
KeêQ«ò ùaûfò Wò.G`þ.I. Ròfäû _âgûi^Kê @aMZ KeûAaû ij Kû~ðýû^êÂû^ _ûAñ @^êùeû]
Keò[ôùfö iìP^û @]ôKûe @ûA^ akùe ]cðgûkû Zjiòfeê còkò[ôaû Z[ý @^ê~ûdú, Cq @kùe
LYò L^^ _ûAñ ùKøYiò aýqòuê fòRþ \ò@û~ûA ^ûjó Gaõj ù~Cñ LYò L^^ PûfòQò Zûjû
iµì‰ð ùa@ûA^ö
Cq
Z[ý jûif _ùe gâú iùaðgße ùajêeû Zû 12û07û2019ùe Ròfäû_ûkuVûeê @ûe¸ Keò
cêLý gûi^ iPòa, eûRÊ iPòa, ùK¦âûk eûRÊ Kcòg^euê @bòù~ûM Keòaû ij Zêe«
Kû~ðýû^êÂû^ MâjY _ûAñ ^òùa\^ Keò[ôùfö Gjò LYò jeòfêUþ gûiK \ke AwòZùe Gaõ
iÚû^úd aò]ûdKu ^òùŸðge aòùRWò \ke LYò cû`ò@ûcû^u \ßûeû ùjC[ôaûeê _âgûi^òK
@]ôKûeúcûù^ ^úea\âÁû iûRò[ôùfö Gjû_ùe Zû 28û03û2019ùe Z}ûkú^ ]cðgûkû
Zjiòf\ûe Wò.`þ.I., KUKuê PòVò ùfLô Cq
aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿ Pûeò_ûLùe Pûfò[ôaû Kâieþ dê^òUþ Gaõ ùa@ûA^ LYò L^^ iµKðùe
eòù_ûUð ù\aûKê Kjòaû ij Gjò ùa@ûA^ LYò L^^ a¦ _ûAñ _\ùl_ ù^aûKê Kjò[ôùfö Zû
08û02û2019eòLùe Wò.G`þ.I. KUK ~ûR_êe Ròfæû_ûk e¬^ Kêcûe \ûiuê PòVò ùfLô aòQûLŠò
_ûjûWÿùe Pûfò[ôaû ùa@ûA^ Kkû_[e L^^ Gaõ Kâie dê^òUþ MêWÿòKê iµKðùe @aMZ
KeûA[ôùfö
gâú~êq
iùaðgße ùajêeû iìP^û @]ôKûe @ûA^ùe Ròfäû_ûku \¯eeê RûYòaûKê _ûAùf ù~ Ròfäû_ûk
12Uò Kâieþ dê^òUþ Pûfòaû _ûAñ @^êcZò ù\AQ«òö
aòQûLŠò
@kùe aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe Pûfò[ôaû Kkû_[e ùPûeúKê a¦ Keòaû _ûAñ Ròfäû _âgûi^
ùKøYiò _\ùl_ MâjY ^ Keòaûeê gâú ùajêeû Zû 08û02û2021eòLùe ùfûKûdêqu ^òKUùe
@bòù~ûM ij Gjûe Z\« _ûAñ \ûaò Keò[ôùfö
ùfûKûdêq
Cq @bòù~ûM iõLýû LY No. 120/2021 Kê
MâjY Keò Ròfäû_ûk, Zjiòf\ûeuê ù^ûUòiþ Keò[ôùfö ùicû^u Ceùe i«êÁ ^ ùjaûeê
ùfûKûdêq eûRý bòRòfû^þiKê Z\« _ûAñ ^òùŸðg ù\A[ôùfö Kkû_[e LYò jeòfêUþ GùZ aýû_K
[ôfû ù~, bòRòfû^þi ahðû]ôK icd ù^A MZ Zû 28û04û2023eòLùe Zûu eòù_ûUð _â\û^
Keò[ôùf c¤ LYòùPûeúe iVòKþ @ûKk^ Keò_ûeò^[ôùfö
Cq
ùPûeû _[eLYò L^^e Z\« _ûAñ eûRý bòRòfû^þi bûeZ ieKûeu jûA\âûaû\iÚòZ National
Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO e
ijûdZû ù^A[ôùfö Cq iõiÚû eûRý bòRòfû^þiKê 2005eê 2020 c¤ùe aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿe
iûùUfûAUþ Qaò Cùûk^ Keò _â\û^ Keò[ôùfö Gjû_ùe Cq QaòMêWÿòKê IeiûKþ, bêaù^gßeKê
@^ê¤û^ Keò ahðIßûeú ùKùZ _eòcûYe Kkû_[e L^^ ùjûAQò, Gjûe Z[ý ù\aûKê @^êùeû]
Keû~ûA[ôfûö GVûùe iìP^ûù~ûMý ù~, Cq Kkû_[e L^^ ù~ûMêñ aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe aWÿaWÿ
ù_ûLeú iéÁò ùjûAQòö Gjò ù_ûLeúMêWÿòKùe _ûYò bòð [ôaûeê 2005eê 2020 c¤ùe Cq
iÚû^ùe ùKùZ _[e ùLûk~ûAQò, Gjû Kò_eò c_û~òaö ùi[ô_ûAñ bòRòfû^þi IeiûKþVûeê
ùa÷hdòK ijûdZû ùfûWÿò[ôfûö IeiûKþ aðcû^ iÚòZòKê @û]ûe Keò c_û~ûA _ûeòa ùaûkò
RYûA[ôùfö
2015-16eê
2019-20 c¤ùe _[e LYò L^^ _ûAñ fòRþ \ò@û~ûA[ôaû 12Uò fòRþ @k _eòie aûjûùe LYò
fòRþ]ûeúcûù^ flfl U^þ _[e ùa@ûA^ bûùa Cùûk^ KeòQ«òö ùijò_eò fòRþ ^[ûA 4Uò fòRþ
iÚû^ùe LYò cû`ò@ûcûù^ flfl U^þe _[e ùPûeû PûfûY ùjûAQòö eûRý bòRòfû^þi edûfUò
aûa\ùe Gjò ùPûeûPûfûYùe jûeûjûeò 200 ùKûUò Uuûe eûRÊ lZò ùjûAQòö ùijò_eò fòRþ
@k aûjûùe ùa@ûA^ bûùa LYò ùPûeò Keò[ôaû fòRþ]ûeúcûù^ jûeûjûeò 12 ùKûUò Uuû
eûRÊ lZò NUûAQ«òö Kò«ê ~\ò icÉ Kkû_[e ùPûeòe aRûe \eKê jòiûaKê ^ò@û~ûG, (1300
Uuû - GK KêýaòKþ còUe _[e) ùZùa 1000 ùKûUò Uuû fêUþ ùjûAQò ùaûfò gâú iùaðgße
ùajêeû @bòù~ûM KeòQ«òö
iõelòZ
Rwfùe ùK¦â ieKûeu aò^û @^êùcû\^ùe Kò_eò Kkû_[e LYò fòRþ \ò@ûMfû, Gaõ ùPûeò ùjfû
Gjûa
ùjûe Z\« ij Wòò.G`þ.I.u aòeê¡ùe
Kû~ðýû^êÂû^ MâjY _ûAñ gâú ùajêeû Rwf I _eòùag cªYûkdKê c¤ PòVò ùfLôQ«òö GVûùe
iìP^ûù~ûMý ù~, aòQûLŠò _ûjûWÿùe Kkû_[e ùPûeú GùZ aýû_K ù~, bòRòfû^þi c¤ icÉ
LYòe @^ê¤û^ Gaõ lZòe cìfýûd^ Keò_ûeò ^ûjó ùaûfò gâú ùajêeû KjòQ«òö
gûiK
\ke iÚû^úd eûRù^Zû, _âgûi^òK @]ôKûeú, ù_ûfòiþ @]ôKûeú, Rwf aòbûM @]ôKûeúu còkòZ
C\ýc I ijûdZûùe ahðahð ]eò LYò cû`ò@ûcû^u \ßûeû GùZaWÿ Kkû_[e fêUþ i¸a ùjfû
ùaûfò iìP^û @]ôKûe Kcðú gâú _â\ú_ _â]û^ KjòQ«òö
(_â\ú_
_â]û^)
@ûaûjK
IWÿògû iìP^û @]ôKûe
@bò~û^
ù`û^þ : 9937843482
Naxals killed
and surrendered in Odisha
Dear Friends
1.
8.11.18, RTI Application was submitted
to the PIO, office of Director
General of Police, Cuttack seeking information about (a) total no. of death of Maoists
from 2010 to 2018 , (b) total no.
of Maoists surrendered year-wise, (c) Financial assistance given
to each of surrendered Maoists
by Govt. of Odisha.
2.
The PIO denied
to supply the information on the ground of
section 8(1) (a) and (g) of the RTI Act . The PIO has also further
stated that the holder of the information is Special Intelligence Wing ( SIW) which is exempted from
disclosure of information under
section 24 of the RTI Act as per notification
No. PC-100/2005-29086 issued by I
and PR Department. The First Appellate Authority
upheld the decision of the PIO and rejected the
appeal petition.
3.
Then, Second Appeal was filed before the
Commission. The case was registered as SA No. 844/2019.
4. It was submitted
before the Commission counter
to decision of PIO and FAA that It
is general practice of the police in charge of anti-Maoist operation that
the killing of Maoists and
surrender of Maoists including
their names are publicly
displayed and presented in media by
the police to take credit. News
about such declaration and public display was presented for reference
of the Commission during hearing
of the case. From such public display,
the people of the state got
aware about achievement
of police in checking Maoist menace
in the state. The media also
glorified the police officers
and they were also awarded huge
secret money for their
act of killing Maoists.
5. It was
also submitted that to award
surrendered Maoists, the State Government has framed
Scheme for surrender and rehabilitation of Left Wing Extremists dt. 20.6.2006. As per point no. 2.2. of the said scheme, “ He
( the surrendered maoist) should make public statement of his voluntary
surrender through the media”. The Govt. has made series of
provision to award financial
assistance to the surrendered
Maoists. This money is borne from state exchequer i.e.,
Tax-payers’ money.
6. It was also presented that the appellant
has not sought
the name of the
Maoists who have been killed
by Odisha Police and surrendered rather
no. of Maoists killed by the police.
So it is not related
to section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act.
7. It was also submitted
that “the information sought for about financial assistance given to
each surrendered Maoists” is not
related to any
personal information and is no
way endanger life and physical safety of any person. The PIO has submitted that in the past the
co-Maoists have killed them who had
surrendered before police. This
submission is totally false and unacceptable.
As per Govt. Rules, the Maoists will surrender publicly before the
media. Accordingly, whenever the Maoists
express their interest to surrender, the police organize the press meet for
public display. It has been done in several cases. So
the question of keeping
their name secret does not
arise as it is already
in public domain ( google group ). I request commission to disclose
name of the maoists who have
surrendered and paid financial package as per
scheme.
8. The disclosure
of this information is
crucial as to check
corruption in distribution of
financial assistance to the surrendered
maoists by the police. It has been alleged
several times that the award
money sanctioned for awarding
is misappropriated and misused by
the police personnel in Malkangiri. In 2007 there was allegation
of misappropriation of award
money by Mr. Satish Gajbhie, the then SP
of Malkangiri and
disciplinary proceedings was initiated
against him. The mandate
of RTI Act is to check
corruption in public office and
pubic work. This information sought for is
having same objective
to fulfil mandate of the RTI Act.
9. The PIO has mentioned during hearing of the case that
the Special Operation Wing
comes under exempted category of
organization which is not required
to supply the
information under RTI Act. I
objected that though the
information sought for relates
to Special Operation Wing , but
the said information is also
available in the DG police
and Department of Home as nodal
department for police personnel. As this
matter is sensitive and
sensitive issue , the
Govt. is having all information about
it which is also
presented in the assembly.
10.
As the financial assistance is given
as per scheme in order to
provide support service
to surrendered maoists to
lead good life, the citizens have right
to know about financial amount given to
each maoist.
11.
The claim of PIO that “the said information comes under section 8 (1)(a)” is bluff and no way related to safety and security of nation.
Hearing both the
sides, the Commission
directed to supply the following information without disclosing name of
the surrendered Maoists . On 19.4.23, the PIO has supplied the following
information.
Total No. of
Naxals killed and surrendered in Odisha
Year |
Naxals killed |
Naxals
surrendered |
2010 |
12 |
44 |
2011 |
23 |
50 |
2012 |
10 |
35 |
2013 |
23 |
92 |
2014 |
6 |
99 |
2015 |
9 |
64 |
2016 |
39 |
31 |
2017 |
7 |
26 |
2018 |
19 |
27 |
Total |
148 |
468 |
Abstract of funds
provided for surrendered Naxalites
Year of Surrender |
No.of Cases in which Rehabilitation of benefits provided |
Amount provided ( In lakhs) |
2010 |
25 |
54.82 |
2011 |
47 |
135.41 |
2012 |
30 |
82.74 |
2013 |
29 |
87.65 |
2014 |
37 |
115.00 |
2015 |
36 |
113.12 |
2016 |
24 |
68.14 |
2017 |
21 |
68.56 |
2018 |
17 |
49.76 |
Total
|
266 |
775.20
|
Pradip Pradhan
M-9937843482
Date- 2.5.23