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

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 1^st 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