Re: [HumJanenge] Disposal of cases by Orissa Information Commission still low

Mr. Pradip Pradhan 

File an RTI Application seeking information with reference to salary , HRA & Other benifits given to Chief information commissioners and other information commissioner , Then you will be surprised , How much money is spent on each complaint / apeal by the government , How they are closing the cases without providing the information 

ars kumar be llb 

social activist 

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear friends,

In the Month of May, 2011, Mr. Prahallad Padhi, RTI Activist  of Bolangir district, Orissa had submitted RTI Application seeking information about the number of cases  ( both Complaints and 2^nd Appeals) heard  and disposed of  by the Orissa Chief Information Commissioner and two Orissa  Information Commissioners during January to March, 2011. The information supplied by the PIO on 8.6.2011 is as follows.

 

Month/ Year-2011	T.K.Mishra (OCIC)		Mr.Jagadanand (SIC)		Mr.P.K.Mohanty (SIC)
	No. of total cases heard	No. of cases disposed of	No. of total cases heard	No. of cases disposed	No. of total cases heard	No. of cases disposed
Jan	167	89	157	81	134	51
Feb.	111	47	158	70	49	31
March	111	45	110	64	45	32
Total	389	181	425	215	228	114

 

From an analysis of the above table it is evident that-

a. Within 3 months, total no. of cases  disposed  by 3-Member Orissa Information Commission = 510

b. Average per month disposal of cases by the whole Commission =       170

c. Average number of cases dis[osed by each Information Commissioner per month =   56

d. Average no. of cases heard by each Commissioner is not taken into account for the purpose of analysis,  because hearing itself is not directly related to the interest of the applicants/ citizens.

 

Earlier in 2010, we had made an analysis  from which it was found that the average number of disposals by each Information Commissioner per month was  only 37. It was then repeatedly pointed out  that because of their inefficiency coupled engagement in extra-statutory activities like orgaising and addressing workshop and seminars, the Information Commissioners of the State could dispose only a small number of cases. Whereas the Information Commissioners of other states like Gujurat, Maharastra and Rajasthan have been disposing by far larger number of cases per month.

 Further, it is worthwhile to mention that the current rate of disposal of the cases i.e. 56 per month  by each  Information  Commissioner may appear a visible improvement and enhanced efficiency of the Commission, but this perception is wrong.

 

Within  these 3 months, the Commissioners of Orissa  have illegally  and arbitrarily disposed  and closed a large number of cases (for example, Complaint Case No.- 1195/10 disposed on 24.2.2011, CC No- 1368/10 disposed on 23.3.2011 and CC. No-1347/2010 disposed on 18.3.2011) without hearing  them  and by simply remanding them  to the 1^st appellate authority  with a direction to  provide the required information to the concerned Complainants.

 The practice of disposing and closing the cases by the Commissioners unilaterally without giving the opportunity of hearing to the complainants is not only illegal but against the spirit of RTI Act. Now, as if adding salt to the injury, the 1^st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing the cases nor providing the information to the concerned complainants despite the direction from the Commission to do so. The Commissioners also bother little about whether the 1^st Appellate Authorities did act as per the direction from the Commission or not.  Besides the Commission's  further order of making a 2^nd appeal afresh  in case of the failure of the complainant to get the information is not only cumbersome but also costly and time consuming. Strange it might seem, the hearing of Complaint cases filed in the office of the Commission  back in 2008 is being started now i.e. after a lapse of 3 years.  

 

Thus the rate of disposal of  cases  i.e 56 per month by each commissioner would come down if we  deduct the number of arbitrarily  disposed cases  from the purview of analysis. Thus we don't see any improvement  in the efficiency  of the Information Commission in respect of their principal obligation i.e. adjudication of complaints and 2nd appeals in comparison to its past record.

 

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date-5.7.2011