Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: Orissa Information Commissioner is hand in glove with corrupt bureaucracy

I request Mr. Padhi to share the decisioin of the SIC with the local media. I also request him to forward the reply of CPIO and decision of SIC. Another options - a)remit the fee as asked by the PIO and wait for the information, despite the order of the SIC.  Let him see whether now the CPIO furnish the infn or cite the of SIC decision. 2) Ask SIC for a review of the decision, if the cpio cite the SIC decision, quoting that the CPIO is ready to provide the information and the order of the SIC in that circumstances is in violation of the RTI Act, beyond the jurisdiction and scope of SIC.  (consult some legal person for apprporiate terminology). --- 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