BMC’s reluctance to provide information:
A classic case of efforts by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials to dissuade citizens from seeking details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has come to light.
On 3rd September, Aftab Siddique, prominent activist from Khar, sent an RTI request to the municipal commissioner, seeking information about the number of Ganpati mandal permissions this year.
The commissioner’s office replied on 10th September, directing her to apply to the deputy commissioners. The deputy commissioner (removal of encroachment) and deputy commissioner Zone II.
Accordingly, she applied to both the deputy commissioners. The deputy commissioner (removal of encroachment) Anand Wagralkar informed her on November 8 that, as per a circular issued by the BMC, the information can be had only from the deputy commissioner Zone II, Kishore Kshirsagar.
Kshirsagar is the nodal officer for all matters related to Ganesh mandals.
Instead of collating the necessary information from the ward officers and providing it to Siddique, Kshirsagar gave copies of her application to all the 24 ward officers of Greater Mumbai. Siddique was shocked when 10 of the ward officers called her the same day – on 27th November.
“How am I supposed to be present at 10 ward offices the same day? This is nothing but an effort to sabotage my RTI, Kshirsagar has failed in his duty to obtain the information and pass it on to me,” she added.
Kshirsagar was unavailable for comment. His office said he was busy on a tour of the wards in zone II. Siddique said she wanted the information since several illegal Ganesh pandals were put up.
The spirit of the RTI Act is destroyed by such hostile attitude. Even though Kshirsagar may not be the primary Public Information Officer (PIO) under the law, he could have easily parted with the information, which must have been with him in his capacity as the nodal officer for Ganesh mandals.” she observed
Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act:
The Prime Minister’s Office has refused to disclose communication exchanged between former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi during the 2002 Gujarat riots even after 11 years.
Responding to an RTI application, the PMO cited section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The PMO did not give any reasons as to how disclosure of the information would attract section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act even though the Delhi High Court has made it clear that cogent reasons must be given while denying information under the clause.
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act:
The Supreme Court has admitted ADAG Relianceled power distribution companies’ appeals seeking quashing of the Orissa High Court order that declared them as ‘public authorities’, thus bringing them under the purview of the RTI Act.
Reliance Infrastructure owned three discoms, engaged in the distribution and retail supply of Electricity in 23 districts of Orissa since 1999, had challenged the order arguing they are exclusively private bodies, and not public authorities within the meaning of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
