Without authority and despite huge pendency Maharashtra SIC to go on long vacations.

Without any authority and despite pendency of 33,000 second appeals State Information commission of Maharashtra (MSIC) has decided to go on three long vacations in 2016. The appointment of information commissioners has been severely criticized by the Right To Information (RTI) circles since beginning. It is not secret that they lobby hard and pull every string to get themselves appointed as transparency watchdogs. These Posts have been called the "parking lot for post-retirement babus" to enjoy the perks that it offers. That is the very reason that appointments of retired bureaucrats have adversely hit the implementation of the RTI Act.

The MSIC will go on special vacation on 9^th may to 5^th June, 28^th October to 6^th November and 25^th December 2016 to 1^st January 2017. With this decision MSIC has brought their vacations at par High court. Chief information commissioner of Maharashtra Ratnakar Gaikwad has issued this order under section 15 (4) of the RTI act. However, the Chief Information Commissioner does not even have the authority to approve the casual leave of himself and other Information Commissioners without The consent of the Governor. It needs to be pointed out here that Governor of Maharashtra had delegated that authority to him issuing a special order dated 25/06/2009.

No doubt that as per section  section 15 (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission vests in the State Chief Information Commissioner however that does not empower him to use governors authority. As per terms and conditions of services of information commissioners they are eligible for the leave as per all India services officers and such leave is to be sanctioned by the governor. Chief information commissioner does not have authority to sanction such leave or vacation. That’s why to sanction casual leave governor has given that authority to chief information commissioner by special consent.

It is not secret that bureaucracy is taking over the every system that has been created to fight it. But they are not doing not for the benefit of the society. They want to enjoy lavish life at the cost of public money. And to avail such perks they are loathed to give decisions against officials with whom they had served for.

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

Vijay Kumbhar

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199

Email – kvijay14@gmail.com

Website – http://surajya.org              

Facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/kvijay14

Twitter -  https://twitter.com/Vijaykumbhar62

YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

  

An appeal to Maharashtra SIC to Withdraw Order

To,

Ratnakar Giakwad,

State Chief information Commissioner

State Information commission

Mumbai

Dear Sir,

You have issued an order to all public authorities on 26/9/2013 ( mu ma aa/vaastu/imarat/nakashe/2013 . Exact English translation of that order is like this

                              Order

While dealing with the appeals  and complaints received under RTI act , It has been observed that, some public authorities provide information related to   building plans and interior of the buildings while dealing with the application received under RTI regarding public, semi-public offices , hotels , gymnasiums, hospitals, malls, IT buildings , structures of commercial buildings .

As per section 19 (8) ( a ) and section 25 (5) , it is being ordered that , all public authorities , If asked plans / documents of such structures/ buildings, considering security reason such information should not be provided, similarly if asked plans related to private buildings/structures , unless public interest is involved  in it, such plans ( interiors ) etc. should not be provided. These orders are being given to all municipal corporations / municipalities.

Principal secretory, urban development department (1) (2) to inform above orders to all municipal corporations, municipalities as well as special planning authorities

Now I want to bring some points to your notice

1)  As far as RTI act is concerned giving information must be rule and denying must be the exception.

2)  It is clear from your order that you have asked not give any information related to any public semi public building/structure.

3)  Actually information related to all buildings including public – semi public buildings is covered under section 4 (1) (b) (xiii)(     particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it; ) and 4 (1) (b) (xi) (the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;)

4)  There was no request or demand from any security agency then I don’t understand what prompted you to issue such orders,

5)  As per Section 19 (8) (a) information commissioner surely has authority to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, but that authority has to be used while hearing second appeal under section 19 .You can not use such authority to order blanket ban on any information

6)  As per section 25 (5) information commissions can recommend certain things to public authority ( not authorities)  he can not order blanket ban on providing information ( If it appears to the Information Commission that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.)

7)  It is commendable that you have expressed concern about security of public places. However it is highly impossible that terrorist will demand plans of buildings under RTI act then decide their course of action. Why they will take such a long rout when the public places are open to all, all the time.

8)  At one place you have in to bracket used word interior, that means information related to interior of the building also should not be provide. here I want to bring to your notice that even home department also doesn’t think like that. They even allow shooting of films in interior and exterior part of the jails that attract most dangerous security threats. Recently home department has hiked fee for such shootings in and around jails.

I now humbly request you to, taking into consideration all above points please withdraw your orders immediately.

More than three million RTI applicants got Information , Claims SIC Maharashtra

More than 96% of RTI applicants in Maharashtra got information in last seven years .This claim is made by state information commission (SIC) of Maharashtra in its seventh annual report placed before state legislative assembly. If this claim is to be believed then there is already "RAMRAJYA" (Goode Governance) in Maharashtra. The claim is based on information provided by various public authorities in the state. As per report in last seven years i.e. since inception of RTI act Public Authorities (PA) received total 31, 72,114  RTI applications,  out of which only 1,27,357  i.e. only 4% of the applicants filed second appeals , that means 96% i.e. 30, 71, 532 applicants got the desired information.

If this statistics is to believed there is no need of proactive disclosure or any other measures for implementation of RTI act in Maharashtra. However, Ground reality is far more different from this. Surprisingly in this report, it has stated that 80 % of the Public Information Officers (PIO) and First appellate authorities are unaware of procedure to be followed to address RTI queries as per the act. The act has not been propagated and reached to its beneficiaries in true sense. Many public authorities have not complied with section 4 of the act. Status of the documentation or record is not satisfactory in most of the public authorities. It is hard to believe that despite of all these odds 96% of the applicants got the desired information. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this situation is that, the data supplied by public authorities on whom this report is not trust worthy, and SIC cannot verify this data by any means.

Since last three four years SIC reports are just copy paste work. This year is also no exception. There were lot of expectations as state chief information commissioner was a former state chief secretary, has thorough knowledge of administration. When last two annual reports were submitted, he was in chair as a chief secretary. He was supposed to find the ways to tackle hurdles in compliance of suggestions of SIC and implementation of RTI act. However, nothing happened. He has same expectations from government that earlier commissions had.

Vacant posts of commissioners , vacant posts of employees , not supply of franking machines, non compliance of section 4 of the RTI act, non compliance of sic decisions, poor documentation and record keeping, Necessity of training to PIO's, FAA' and citizens all such demands are there since last seven years  but Government did not pay any heed. It was possible for Ratnakar Giakwad to do something for RTI act as a chief secretary, but he did not do anything. Now he expects that governments view must be positive towards supply of necessary facilities to SIC.

The only new suggestions from SIC this year are, syllabus related to  The RTI act , Maharashtra Public Records Act  and  Delay in Discharge of official duties  should be included in Departmental Qualification Examination of employees and scanned documents to RTI applicant should be provided to RTI applicant , it will save time and energy of public authority.

It is almost more than a year that Ratnakar Giakwad assumed charge of chief Information commissioner. There were lot of expectations from him. Getting approved "appeal procedure rules" from government was one of the major task before him, but he could not do so. The only positive thing he did was,  fast disposal of second appeals and bringing pendency his bench to almost zero.