I really suggest that we should have a arm dealer on the group so we can buy and shot these non essential people from the indian bureaucracy.
Please do not ban me but there come a sense of help less ness with such incidences
Regards,
Mr. Hemant Kshirsagar
+91 8149322665
--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Fwd: Orissa Information Commissioner is hand in glove with corrupt bureaucracy
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, 6 June, 2011, 3:30 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: prahallad Padhi <prahalladpadhi60@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Orissa Information Commissioner is hand in glove with corrupt bureaucracy
To: odishasoochanaadhikar@gmail.com, pradippradhan63@gmail.com
Orissa Information Commissioner is hand in glove with corrupt bureaucracy
Dear friends
Let me share with you how the Orissa Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand is acting to protect corrupt bureaucracy at the cost of the interest of complainant-citizens and going against letter and spirit of RTI Act.
While attending a number of meetings and having seen the advertisement on RTI in media, I was under impression that RTI is a biggest tool in the hand of citizens to check corruption in the country. Information Commissioners have been appointed to protect RTI in the state. But after using RTI to expose corruption in development work in Bolangir, I experience that it is false propaganda. It is more astonishing how the Information Commission itself working day and night to subvert the spirit of RTI.
On dated 29.11.08., I had submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office of Junior Engineer, Soil Conservation, Khaprakhol, Bolangir seeking information related to DPAP Watersheds, NREGA implemented in Khaprakhol and copy of vouchers, cash books, muster rolls of the schemes for the period from 2002 to 2008. Within stipulated time period, the PIO who received the application on 8.12.2008 intimated to me on 5.1.2009 to deposit Rs. 60,000/- towards cost of the information. Accordingly, I went to the office to deposit the said amount thrice but found his absence. One day, I went to his house and found PIO and requested him to receive the amount. He refused to receive the amount citing no reasons. When I asked him when he would be available in the office , he did not reply anything.
Finding no information, I filed complaint case to the Orissa Information Commission on 29.1.2009. After around one year, my complaint case ( CC No. 117/2009, disposed on 26.7.2010) was heard by Mr. Jagadadanand on 22.4.2010 and 20.6.2010. I was absent in the first hearing and got the letter of second hearing on same day. . On 3rd hearing on 26.7.10, Mr. Jagadanand heard the case in Sambalpur. Due to my personal problem, I could not go to the hearing but made fax message describing details of the problem created by PIO, his refusal to receive the amount and failure to provide me information and my appeal to penalize him. Without considering my appeal, the Commission disposed the case neither ensuring information nor imposing penalty on PIO.
After around 9 months of interval, I received a copy of the decision of my case on 27.4.2011. You can see how sincere Mr. Jagadanand is in his work.
I got astonished having gone through the decision that " The Complainant is advised to seek specific information rather than seeking huge amount of diversified information in RTI Applications so as to enable cost effectiveness for the applicant as well as compliance by the Public authority within the stipulated time as per mandate of the RTI Act". I could not understand why the Commission has written in his decision about specific information. The information which I sought has not been objected by the PIO. Rather PIO has written a letter to me to deposit the amount. In RTI Act, there is no such provision of seeking specific information from the Public Authority. Section 6 ( 1) of RTI Act says " A person who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language x x x x x x x x x x accompanying such fee as may be prescribed. It reveals that the intention of Mr. Jagadanand is to protect corrupt officials by hook or by crook going against the letter of the Act.
Mr. Jagadanand again has written in his decision that " Taking into account the fact and circumstances of this case, the Commission is of the opinion that the initial response sent to the complainant is within the stipulated time as per the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act and there appears no further issue to adjudicate". The essence of this sentence is , as I mean that as the PIO has responded the application within stipulated time, the penalty can not be imposed on him. This arbitrary analysis and interpretation of the Act by the Commission is totally wrong. As per section 20 (1) of RTI Act, the penalty can be imposed on PIO on the ground of refusal to receive the application, not furnished the information within stipulated time, knowingly given incorrect, incomplete information or misleading information or destroyed the information, obstructed in any manner etc. The intention of Mr. Jagadanand 's wrong interpretation of RTI Act is to satisfy the interest of corrupt bureaucracy in our state. For this work, he is given Rs. 1,30,000 per month.
Thanks
Prahallad Padhi
Bolangir, Orissa
M-94372-40802
No comments:
Post a Comment