r2i
Part A : Decisions of CIC and SIC
S. 19(8) provides for the powers of the Information
Commissions and includes the power to require the public authority to compensate
the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
An interesting case came up before the State Information
Commission, Goa. Mr. Harihar Chodankar, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa made an RTI
application seeking information of certain details of conservations in different
properties within the jurisdiction of the Calangute Village Panchayat.
Application was rejected by PIO u/s.8(j) of the RTI Act. The first appellate
authority directed PIO to give the information within 15 days. PIO still did not
furnish the information. Hence Mr. Chodankar made a complaint to SIC, Goa u/s.18
of the RTI Act. Even under proceedings before SIC, the PIO went on taking
adjournments and finally wrote to Mr. Chodankar that documents requested are not
available and files not traceable; only in respect of one property, part of the
information was furnished.
SIC then ruled that there is a willful disobedience by PIO.
However as in one year a number of individuals had occupied the position of PIO,
it was difficult to find out who in particular is responsible for the defaults.
SIC, therefore directed the Director of Panchayats to hold an inquiry, fix up
responsibility for missing records in this case and initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the persons found responsible. He directed the Director to
file compliance report to the Commission in six months time.
SIC further noted : “As the appellant/complainant was put to
considerable hardship and also this not being the first case the Village
Panchayat has misplaced its records, we consider it proper to award compensation
to the appellant/complainant in exercise of powers vested in us u/s.19(8) of the
RTI Act. However, as the High Court in a writ petition No. 327/2007, is seized
of the jurisdiction of this Commission to award compensation u/s.19(8) in a
complaint proceeding u/s.18 of the RTI Act, we restrain ourselves from awarding
the compensation.
We shall await to find out what the High Court decides about
the powers u/s.19(8) as CIC has already awarded compensation to the complainant
u/s. 19(8). (See BCAJ : August 2008). No information available whether SEBI who
has to pay this compensation has gone in writ.
[2008 (2) ID 157 (SIC, Goa) : Mr. Harihar Chodankar,
Mapusa, Goa v. PIO, Secretary, Village Panchayat of Calangute, Goa and the
first AA, BDO, Goa]
Very often at the RTI Clinic of BCAS Foundation, individuals
come to enquire as to what fees are payable for certified copies of the
documents under the RTI Act. The rules provide fee for copies of the document.
Under the RTI (Regulation of fees and cost) Rules of the Central Government, it
is Rs.2 for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied. The same is
the fee in the rules of many states. However, there is no rule providing for
fees for certified copies.
Before SIC, Maharashtra, Mr. Bomi Mistry made a complaint
that BMC has been charging fees for certified copies which are not in consonance
with the RTI Act.
However in view of what the Rules provide, SIC (Dr. Suresh
Joshi, CIC) has ruled as under :
- Rule 4 does not prescribe the fees for certified copies, therefore, if an
appellant needs certified copies, whatever rates are prescribed by BMC for
certified copies should be charged.
- At many places under BMC schedule of rates separate rates for copy and
separate rates for attestation has been mentioned. In such case, for a copy
the fee prescribed under rule 4(b) i.e., Rs.2 per page, etc. should be
charged and for attestation the fees prescribed under schedule of rates of BMC
should be charged.
[Shri Bomi Mistry, Mumbai v. PIO, Assessment and
Collection Department, MCGM, Head Office, Mumbai]
- Whether Co-operative Societies are covered under the RTI Act :
Hundreds of individuals have raised this issue. It is
understood that SIC in Maharashtra generally rules that as such the co-operative
societies are not covered, but the information which the societies are required
to file with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies can be accessed from his
office and no information beyond it.
However, there has been a decision, extensively discussing
the issue, running into 42 pages of Gujarat Information Commission on this
subject. The decision/order reads as under :
(i) All co-operative societies registered under the Gujarat State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 are bodies controlled falling within the ambit of the definition of ‘public authority’ given at S. 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore, are public authorities.
(ii) All co-operative banks since all such banks are registered as co-operative societies are also bodies controlled falling within the ambit of the definition of ‘public authority’ given at S. 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore, are public authorities.
(iii) In view of the above decision, all co-operative societies and co-operative banks are required to abide by the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Chapter II thereof, dealing with obligations of public authorities, including providing information to the citizens, subject to the provisions contained in S. 8(1), S. 9 and S. 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The decision is challenged and pending before the Gujarat High Court.
Part B : The RTI Act
The RTI Act is by now a three-year young Act, powerful and bringing solutions to many ills in society. However, no statistics of its implementation are available. It is funny to say that the Act to provide information does not provide information for its implementation! There have been many key issues and constraints in its implementation. In order to study the same, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions have appointed Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited to conduct a study. PWC has issued a separate questionnaire for feedback from each of the six stakeholders identified by them.
Answers to these questionnaires shall provide to PWC various missing, unavailable information and views of the information providers and information seekers.
Some of the information, very essential to assess the success of the Act, but not available are:
- How many Public Authorities (AA) exist, how many of them have complied with their obligations.
- How many PIOs and AAs are there in these PAs.
- How many applications are made each year, how many go to the first AA and how many then give up and do not go for the second appeal to CIC/SIC.
- What is the level of awareness of the RTI Act in urban areas and rural communities.
- What are the major difficulties faced by information seekers in filing RTI applications, level of satisfaction or otherwise.
- Similarly, what are the major complaints of PIOs in terms of their obligations, time-bound responsibilities to attend to RTI applications along with other duties assigned to them.
Let us hope that the study enlightens various stakeholders – Governments, Information Commissions, Public Authorities, Public Information Officers/ Appellate Authorities, Nodal Agencies (appointed for training of PIOs, etc. and awareness building) information seekers, RTI activists, media, etc.
Part C : Other News
• RTI Helpline :
RTI activists in many cities of India run RTI helpline. Telephone helplines today are an increasingly common part of communication. They are very easy, less expensive and fastest medium of communication in India. With the advent of mobile phone, every 4th/ 5th citizen has access to mobile.
The Public Concern for Governance Trust’s (PCGT) Right To Information (RTI) Helpline in MUMBAI, launched on 2nd October, is purported to be an effective initiative of dealing with governance issues in which large number of people need personal counselling or information for filing RTI applica-tions. RTI Helpline could answer basic questions such as: what is the fee for filing applications, how to pay fees for an RTI application, among other things.
The main goal of PCGT’s RTI Helpline is to inform the public of the many issues of governance that we as a society face today, while also encouraging the citizenry to take up the struggle for governance at individual level. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused”.
PCGT’s RTI Helpline – 93228822881
An RTI-on-wheels facility started by the Gujarat Mahiti Adhikar Pahel, an NGO in Gujarat, was showcased in Mumbai and Pune by PCGT from 27th to 30th September. The mobile van is equipped with an LCD projector, screen and computer with internet, scanner, printer, copier and a small library. The vehicle showed films on RTI, distributed pamphlets and assisted people in filing RTI applications.
Thousands of individuals in Mumbai and Pune benefitted by the visit of this unique van to Maharashtra.
- Mumbai has lost more than 25000 trees:
Data obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed that the Tree Authority had collected deposits of Rs.9,24,19,OOOfor granting permissions for removal of trees up to March 2006. In subsequent period, further deposit of around Rs.2 crores is received.
Nominated member of the Tree Authority Nilesh Baxi said, “One. thing is certain – out of around 30,000 trees transplanted since 2000, not more than a couple survived. To assume that 25,000 have not been replanted because refunds of the massive deposits are not claimed is one inference. But, in many cases, small-time builders who transplant trees don’t reclaim the amount after getting the no-objection certificate.
It is learnt that one Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai never even bothered to look at the pending 67 RTIappeals, a blatant violation of the RTI Act.
- Penalty for delay in answering RTI application:
The Maharashtra State Information Commissioner, Suresh Joshi has penalised PIa, attached to crime branch’s economic offences wing, for not providing information under the RTI Act within the stipulated period. In his order, [oshi directed that Rs.2,750 should be deducted from PIa S. B. Mohite’s salary as he provided the required information after a delay of 11 days.
- Special Report in MIDDAY:
On 12th October 2008, The Right to Information Act completes three years. On this occasion, MIDDAY brought out a two-page special report which I had a privilege to edit. The report is available at BCAS Library for anyone to read. It contains articles by Arvind Kejriwal, Shailesh Gandhi, Julio Ribeiro and myself and one interesting story of 14-year young filing RTI application and bringing facilities to the town he resides in and much useful information.
