[HumJanenge] Latest gameplan of Odisha Information Commission: Cases get closed, but the applicant gets neither information nor decision

 Latest gameplan of Odisha Information Commission: Cases get closed, but the applicant gets neither information nor decision   

 

Dear friends,

 

On dated 6.9.2011, I had submitted an RTI application to the PIO, Dept. of   Home, Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar  seeking  information about  Sponsorship  to Commissionerate Police, offered  by Companies or Agencies  from 2009 to 2011. The said PIO transferred my RTI Application to the PIO, Commissionerate Police for providing  me the information.  On dated 30.9.2011, the PIO, Commissionerate Police wrote  a letter asking me to deposit Rs. 14,083.00 towards the cost of salary of officials to be engaged for collection of information. Having gone through this letter, I wrote a reply  to the PIO explaining how a citizen is not required to pay the fees for salary of employees to be engaged for collection of information.under RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules.

 

 

On 22.10.11, I filed a complaint to the Commission under section 18 of the RTI Act.  At first, my case ( CC No.- 4473/11) was heard  by Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information commissioner  and later on  by Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner  on 8.8.12. Sadly enough,  Mr. Jagadanand  without holding any enquiry  into the case, fully relied on the version of PIO who said that the officer holding  the information  wanted the abovementioned amount. Mr. Jagadanand also exonerated the concerned officer from penalty on ground of his ignorance about the provisions of  Odisha RTI Rules. That PIO was also not asked by Mr.Jagadanand to make any submission in the matter. Rather he only directed the present PIO to supply the information free of cost within 20 days and closed the case.

 

By now the time-limit of twenty days is over, but the PIO of Commissionerate Police has not supplied any information nor was a copy of the decision made by  Mr. Jagadanand available to the complainant.

 

 It  deserves  to  be mentioned here that   this is not a single  case but  one of hundreds of cases  where  Mr. Jagadanand  has  disposed  and closed the cases  without ensuring the delivery of  information to the  aggrieved Complainant. Moreover, the Commission is  following  a  one-track policy  of  not  opening  the closed cases  even  where  the  direction of the Commission is  not complied with  by the concerned PIO or Public authority. The Information Commissioners argue that there is no provision under the RTI Act for re-opening the cases onced closed.      When their attention is drawn to Section 19(9)- " the Central Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, shall  give notice  of its decision including any right of appeal, to the  complainant and the public authority"  the Commissioners  either remain silent or  avoid   any discussion around it.

 

Now the question arises, what is the politics behind the Information Commissioners' act  of closing the cases while giving  direction to supply information? If the Commission meant honest business, it could have fixed another date for final hearing after giving such direction. But the Commission unilaterally closed the case, without ensuring the delivery of the information. Why did the Commission behave in such irresponsible manner? As a matter of fact, the Information Commissioners have been appointed  by the mercy of their political and bureaucratic bosses, who want them  to serve their    interests. It is seen that the Information Commissioners like Mr. Jagadanand  lack in minimum  efficiency required for holding that post in the state.  So  to satisfy  and save   their political  and bureaucratic  bosses  from  the charges of corruption and irregularities which can be exposed  through  disclosure of information,  the Information Commissioners  toil hard  to  do any illegal  work, even  at  the cost of RTI Act.  The Commission is  having a nexus  with bureaucracy  and  has  signed an unwritten agreement     that the  Commission would close the case after giving   a direction to supply  information  and thus the bureaucracy  need  not provide any information to the complainant.  As the case is closed, no further  hearing will take place and the  information will never be supplied to  the complainants. Thus  the bureaucracy will be on a safer side."  This is the naked practice going on  in our state. The  Commissioners are also  seen   hankering   to get prized position in the present bureaucratic or political hierarchy  as a post-retirement reward  for  their unquestionable loyalty  and  unstinted  support  to  the corrupt system. To save  himself  from  public criticism  the Information Commissioners are found planting agents among the civil society groups, who would invite them to address public meetings  as Chief Guest  or Chief Speaker etc. Ironically, while addressing  the meetings, the  Commissioners  deliver  lengthy speeches  on RTI and its relevance as an anti- corruption tool  and  give clarion call  to the RTI Activists  to  sacrifice their life  for the cause of RTI in the state.   

 

 The RTI Activists, Civil Society Groups and Information-seekers should be alert, cautious  and careful  about the role being played by various  Information Commissioners, especially about  the dubious role of Mr. Jagadanand from among them.

 

With regards

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date- 30.8.12