6RTI Activisits not allowed to scrutinise commission’s files

Info commissioner ticks off RTI activists
Ashutosh Shukla
Saturday, October 25, 2008 02:59 IST

He did not allow them to scrutinise commission’s files

The State Information Commission (SIC) is the authority that is expected to ensure that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is followed in letter and spirit. However, on Friday, in the first-ever inspection of its own files by a bunch of RTI activists, SIC came up a cropper.

As per the RTI Act, any citizen can demand for a personal scrutiny of files under Sec 4 of the Act, and no public authority — not even the SIC — can deny inspection.
State information commissioner S Joshi told the activists that his office was busy and hence could not allow the inspection to take place. When activists requested for inspection of a fraction of what they actually wanted to inspect, Joshi said that they would be entertained only after Diwali.

Pandey sought information of the last time his slum society conducted elections, its present members and a list of people living in his slum, which was to undergo redevelopment under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme.

Pandey filed an RTI in November 2006 with the deputy registrar and later with the appellate authority, but did not get any reply to either. “After a year, I got a date with the information commissioner in July 2008. He gave an extension of 30 days to public information officer (PIO) and now almost three months later, I still have no information. The PIO too was not fined,” he said.

Pressed with an urge to check if the authority was indeed doing its job and appeals showed any positive results, the activists decided to check on the disposal of the RTI appeals and orders passed on them from January to September 2008 on Friday.
In the meeting, Joshi, on Pandey’s issue, said, “If the person was not satisfied, he can move court.”

Rao countered, “The commission cannot pass the buck of safeguarding RTI to the court. By this attitude, the SIC is also devaluing the sanctity of the Act.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mumbai: In a blatant violation of the RTI Act, the State Information Commission (SIC) on Friday denied the request of a group of citizens who wanted to inspect documents at its office. According to Section 4 of the RTI Act, every public authority has to allow inspection of documents to applicants.

The RTI activists had requested for inspection of documents that described the powers and duties of the SIC officials. They also wanted to inspect SIC orders passed during the last six months. “We were denied inspection of these documents, though under the Act it is mandatory that this has to be provided without any prior notice,’’ said Krishnaraj Rao of Sahasi Padayatri who along with five others met the SIC officials.

The citizens also took up the case of Dr Nagendra Pande who has been denied information by Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (Mhada) in spite of an SIC order passed in July this year. “I had asked for details of a re-development policy in my housing society. Despite the SIC order, I have not got this information till date. The commission has not penalised the public information officer at Mhada for violating the Act,’’ Pande said.

The activists had decided to inspect the recent SIC orders as they had received many complaints about orders passed by the commission. “In most cases, the PIOs were not penalised though they had denied the information for months together,’’ said RTI activist Chetan Kothari. Civic activist G R Vora, for instance, had sought information for the suo moto disclosure about the staff and duty details of F-north ward office. “For 18 months, they denied the information. And when the case came up at SIC, they neither penalised the PIO or the appellate authority nor reprimanded them,’’ Vora said.

Applicants said that in some cases, they had to go to the State Human Rights Commission to get justice. “I had filed an RTI query asking for details of the illegal structures that had come up in my neighbourhood. After two years, the SIC passed an order asking the civic authorities to provide the information. But till date, it has not been provided. I had to file a complaint with the SHRC to get the civic body to act,’’ an applicant said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corruption in India,Mumbai,happy,health,Corruption,police,delhi,Bombay,chennai,dubai,constittution,
elderly,corruption,control,bangalore,calcutta,pune,lucknow,change,sessions,court,high court,Supreme court,improve,justice,courts,hafta,chhugani,Chhugani, Pratibha Patil,Rajnikant,verdict,criminal,
system,senior citizens,Times of India,High Court,Supreme Court of India,judgement,
Harish Shetty,Shilpa Shetty,Bandra,Khar,Brown Sugar,Drugs,Sindhi,Xavier College,Stephrns College,Starplus,Jethmalani,memon,Dawood,BharatShah,Barkha,ndtv,Bribes,Infosys,Cnn,Aajtak,Zee,Gandhi, Sabharwal,Jessica Lal