Re: [HumJanenge] Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC,, Odisha , exposed through RTI

Dear Pradip

It seems that these cut paste orders are being issued where
the "Complainant" has approached under section 18 without
filing a first appeal u/s 19(1).

Before claiming a great "victory" in exposing the ICs you
ought to have asked how many "2nd Appeals" u/s 19(3)
were disposed off without affording hearing to appellants.

The RTI by Mr. Satapathy was UNSCIENTIFIC because we
have no way of knowing how many such cases were
Complaints and how many Appeals.

Sarbajit

On 8/12/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr.
> Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner, Odisha , exposed
> through
> RTI*
>
> **
>
> Dear friends
>
> On dated 27.6.12, Mr. Sanjeeb Satapathy, RTI Activist of Kalahandi
> district
> had submitted RTI Application to the PIO to get information about
> number
> of cases disposed by Information Commissioners in the state without
> hearing within the period of January 2011 to June'2012. On dated
> 25.7.12, the PIO provided the following information.
>
>
>
> *Name of Information Commissioner *
>
> *No. of cases disposed without hearing *
>
> Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner
>
> 1914
>
> *Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner*
>
> *1980 *
>
> Mr. Pramod Kumar Mohanty, State Information Commissioner
>
> 820
>
> Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission has
> been empowered to receive, hear, enquire and dispose the Complaints
> and Second
> Appeals and also to impose penalty on defaulting PIOs as and where
> required.
> Needless to say, the hearing of the cases is crucial in the entire process
> of disposal of a case, simply for the reason that it gives an opportunity
> of hearing to the concerned PIO, on whom lies the burden of proof as to
> whether he acted diligently to provide the requested information to the
> applicant. It is also important because the complainant/petitioner might
> raise a slew of critical issues on account of which the RTI users like him
> were deprived of access to information sought for, and which the Commission
> as per Section 19(8) should address to for a better administration of RTI
> regime in the concerned public authority in future.
>
> From above information obtained through RTI, it is seen that Odisha
> Information Commission has been unilaterally disposing a large bulk of
> the cases without holding any hearing on them. *Mr. Jagadanand has scored
> top among other commissioners in respect of unilaterally and arbitrarily
> disposing the cases. *
>
> * *Let us examine how and why the Information Commissioners have adopted
> such nefarious practice to dispose the cases. * *It is seen that the
> Information Commissioners are facing serious public criticism for low
> disposal of cases which attributes to their inefficiency and lack of
> expertise to deal the cases. In order to show their efficiency of
> disposing
> large number of cases in public domain, the Commission has adopted this
> strategy .
>
> The office of the Commission has designed an unique system to quickly
> dispose the cases at the stoke of pen. The staff of all three Information
> Commissioners have developed a format in their computers . In format,
> they make cut and paste of Complaint case number, date and name of the
> Public
> authority and write the text which is very common in all cases that "
> *it is observed that the Complainant did not approach the First
> Appellate Authority for appropriate decision in the matter. In order to
> avoid multiple proceedings under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The
> Commission decided to treat this complaint as a First appeal and to
> remand this appeal to the first appellate authority who is directed to
> dispose of the appeal of complainant within 30 days from the date of
> the receipt of this decision under intimation to the Registrar, Odisha
> Information Commission. If the Complainant is not satisfied with the
> orders of the first appellate authority, he is free to file a second
> appeal
> before the Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act." * The case is
> disposed accordingly. The Information Commissioners do not take any pain
> to
> dispose the cases except putting their signature on the order sheet. This
> is the most simplest and surest method ever invented by any
> Commissioner
> of the world to dispose large volume of the cases.
>
> *What is the devastating outcome ?*
>
> In large number of cases ( such as for instance CC No- 4165/2011 and CC
> No.- 2/2011) the 1st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing nor
> disposing the cases. In fact, the cases unilaterally disposed by the
> Commission are old ones which require immediate hearing and immediate
> delivery of information to the complainants and penalty against the
> defaulter PIOs. As the Commission doesn't enforce actual compliance in
> terms of delivery of information to the complainants and no penalty is
> imposed on erring PIOs for their failure to provide the information, the
> net result is widespread discontentment and anger created among the
> deprived citizens. In a situation where the Complainant has at long last
> been ditched by the Commission, he simply feels hopeless about approaching
> the Commission again in the manner of filing a complaint or second appeal.
> There is only a burning anger and frustration left in them. It has been
> gathered from the sources close to the complainants that huge numbers of
> cases disposed unilaterally by the Commission has not resulted in any
> delivery of information the complainants had asked for but were unduly
> refused. Though some complainants have filed again the previous cases to
> the Commission, the latter is yet to begin deciding them.
>
> The above procedure adopted by the Commission has encouraged the PIOs to
> disregard the RTI Act altogether. They are showing a careless attitude to
> the RTI applications, being overconfident that there is no fear of penalty
> from the Commission. They are under impression that if the complaint
> files a case in the Commission, it will approximately come after one
> year to First Appellate Authority for disposal. In the meantime, the PIO
> will have ample opportunity to decide either to provide the same
> or destroy
> it. So that the information can be easily denied on pretext of
> non-availability of information which the Commissioners speak of
> available
> and permissible information in every hearing.
>
> *Mr. Jagadanand, highest score-winner may feel a self-congratulatory
> satisfaction by dishing out the figures of reduced pendency, but in the
> process he has made RTI Act a casualty of their arbitrary rule. It would
> result in growing frustration and hopelessness among the RTI users and
> further boost to corruption and misfeasance across the state. *
>
> Any Comments from everybody including office of the Commission is most
> welcome.
>
> *Pradip Pradhan*
>
> *M-99378-43482*
>
> *Date- 12.8.12*
>