Draft for Suggestion and objections to the revised development plan of old limit of Pune city.

The last date of submitting suggestions and objections to the revised Draft development plan of Pune city will end on 26th april 2013. Citizens can send their suggestions and objections either to Town Planning Officer on his official PMC address or email them on pmcmco@gmail.com,prashant.waghmare@punecorporation.org ,  pmctpo@rediffmail.com. For citizens who are not in a position to study the draft DP,  we  (Maj. Gen. SCN Jatar, Retd and Mr. Vijay Kumbhar)  have prepared a model draft for suggestions and objections. Citizens can send their suggestions and objections in this format or can add their views if they so wish.

It is the moral duty of every Punekar to send suggestions and objections on draft DP. Otherwise, the generations to follow will hold us responsible and ask questions like, "what have you done for us?" "How many play grounds, gardens, open spaces you have left for us to breath clean?" "When mafias were grabbing these lands, what were you doing?" "At least did you show any courage to register objection to stop such things?"

To avoid these awkward questions, the citizens of Pune must lodge their suggestions and objections in large numbers.

Draft for suggestions and objections

To,

Town Planning Officer,

Pune Municipal Corporation,

Pune,

Sub: - Suggestion and objections to the revised Draft development plan of old limit of Pune city...

Dear Sir,

Pune Municipal Corporation has called suggestion and objections to the revised Draft development plan of Pune city. Our suggestion and objections to the same as under

1) There are no abbreviations mentioned in either draft DP or reservation list. As well, as while publishing this DP, the reports and maps on which this DP is prepared have not published as mandated in MRTP act. So please publish those reports and maps and accordingly request for the extension for time for suggestion and objections.

2) The norms for the reservations made are incorrect and reduced, hence keep the norms that were in 1987 DP plan.

3) There is vast difference between Draft prepared by Town Planning Officer and draft approved by general body. In addition, it has further reduced the standard norms; hence, all the changes made according to suggestions in general body must be cancelled.

4) Henceforth all the reservations will be developed by either R-& of DC rules or under PPP.In this case PMC gets only 15% to 25 % land reserved for public purpose, that will reduce the reservation by 75% to 85% .Already the reservation kept in DP are below norms .And reducing reservation this way will hamper intention of DP, hence all the reservation kept must be used for that purpose only.

5) The accountability for implementation has not been fixed. As such, there is no way to measure the percentage achievement by 2027. The draft DP does not assign responsibilities and targets to any official. As such, this DP too will meet the same fate as the previous ones. Hence, such responsibility should be fixed

6) It is not mentioned in the DP that how PMC will mobilise funds for implementation of DP. Unless it is clear, DP will not be implemented. Hence, the only projects as per availability of funds must be mentioned in the DP.

7) The reservations meant for HCMTR rout in 1987 plan overlapped with new reservations, hence necessary correction should be made and the Detailed Project report for HCMTR should be prepared and all the land meant for it should be acquired simultaneously.

8) The reservation on forestland must be cancelled

 9) Recommendations made by MoEF and approved by High Court should be incorporated in the DP.

10) Rivers and other natural water resources are handed over to PMC for supervision purpose only, PMC cannot make any temporary or permanent construction on it, as well as 7 to 9 meter area around those is always a green belt, this has been overlooked.

11)The use of amusement parks , art and craft villages is proposed on hill top and hill slopes but it is not mentioned in entire DP that by which rules such use has been allowed .so such use should not be allowed.

12) PMC has not complied with conditions imposed by irrigation department regarding recycling of used water and water supply. Hence, projects for recycling of used water, storage of it, provision for canals to use the same and metres to measure to actual supply of water to PMC should be made in DP itself.

13) Provision for the management of solid waste should be made according to the law. Rochem project near Hadpasar is near the residential area. Either to relocate the residential complexes near the project or the project itself should be made in DP itself

Pls consider above suggestions and objections seriously and give us sufficient prior notice for hearing the same.

  

     Thanks and Regards

The controversy emerged after 97th amendment to the constitution of India

The controversy emerged after 97th amendment to the constitution of India has not stopped yet. Though there is no specific and big reaction from the cooperative fraternity, the frustration amongst them is visible enough. Until today lot of people concerned have given their reactions on telephone but no one is ready to come on the record hence it will not be ethical to write here on those reactions. However, some people from co-operative sector as well as RTI fraternity have expressed their views in the media. So let us examine those views in light of provisions of RTI act.

State chief information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad said, "I don’t think that they come under RTI Act. One has to read section 2(h) of the RTI Act to see what it covers. Just because an amendment enables something to come up, does not mean it is established by the government. Societies are a body formed by 20 people. Where is the public interest in that? Even if it did come under RTI, whom will we fine as public information officers? Private companies too are formed under Companies Act but that does not mean they come under RTI unless they are financed or adhere to some of the provisions.

Prahlad Kachre, director of Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration's RTI cell, said inclusion of cooperative bodies under RTI should be decided on merit. "Cooperative societies are not technically formed by the government. They are registered by respective authorities and I do not know if they qualify for RTI,"

Cooperative commissioner Madhukar Chowdhury said, "RTI would be applicable, but only for members of cooperatives." We have not received any directions from the government about applicability of RTI to cooperatives for the general public till date,"

As per ratnakar gaikawad and pralhad kachre, government does not form or establish co operative societies, some people come together and form those hence RTI act is not applicable to them. That means as per both of them co-operatives does not fall in the definition of "public authority" under RTI act.

Let us see the definition of public authority under RTI act. As per section 2 (h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—

               (a)        By or under the Constitution;

               (b)       By any other law made by Parliament;

               (c)        By any other law made by State Legislature;

               (d)        By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

                (i )       Body owned, controlled, or substantially financed;

                (ii)       Non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

In this entire definition, nowhere it is mentioned that "public authority" must be established or constituted by government only. Yes, it is another fact that most of the public authorities are established by government. It is also true that bodies that fall in the section 2(h) (d) are in the ambit of RTI act, whether those are formed or established by, or government or not. But that doesn't mean bodies formed or established other than government but which fall in sections other than 2 (h) (d) doesn't come under the ambit of RTI act.

Let us see this. As per Government of India's official website, there are around 1053 autonomous bodies in India. All of those are in the ambit of RTI act because that fall in the section 2(h) (b) of RTI act .Most of these bodies are not established or formed by the government. In fact, some of these institutes were formed by private individuals also. Later on government, as per act passed by parliament government gave them status of autonomous bodies. Some of those institutes were earlier registered under public trust act or registration of societies act. Even then, government gave them status of autonomous bodies later on. The same thing is with the bodies that fall in the section 2(h) (c) of the RTI act.

It proves that to attract provisions of RTI act, it is not necessary that the institute must be established by the government only. However, it must fall under any of the sub - section of 2(h). And if bodies falling under section 2(h) , (b) (c) and (d) do not demand the criteria that those must be established by the government, then why only bodies fall under the section 2 (h) (a) only should require that criteria , what is the logic behind that?.

As per Cooperative commissioner, Madhukar Chowdhury, RTI would be applicable, but only for members of cooperatives .In the act itself list of bodies that do not attract provisions of RTI has been given (In some circumstances RTI is applicable to them also) .Once provisions of rti act are applicable, those become applicable to one and all and not for the section of the society.

As per ratnakar gaikwad, some people come together and form cooperative society, what is public interest in that? .If we look at the last few years performance of the cooperatives. It can be easily established that how some people came together , formed a cooperative societies and ran away with common peoples hard earned  money and government  loans and guarantee towards loans that was  to the tune of thousands of crores of rupees .And as far as public interest is concerned , it is applicable only when question of third party information , information that is given in fiduciary relation ship or disclosure of the information that may endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Other wise there is no provision for considering public interest while disclosing information.

P.S.

IT is clear that after 97th amendment the difficulties of co-operative societies have increased considerably. To comply with the some of the amended provisions is literally impossible. It is need of time to find solution for that. However, that doesn't mean all the co operative housing societies are innocent, how can we forget Adarsh co operative housing society so early? It is also visible that some people have suddenly realised the gravity of difficulties faced by housing societies, and are trying to hide behind them. Let us see what tricks the play to keep co-operative societies out of ambit of RTI act 

RTI is applicable to cooperatives because Constitution is supreme

Right to Information (RTI) is applicable now to cooperative institutions due to 97th constitutional amendment. But they do not seem to come to terms with the new reality. Still many cooperative institutes are taking a stand that RTI is not applicable to them. But they can not answer the question, why RTI is not applicable to cooperatives in the changed situation. Cooperative institutes are claiming that RTI is not applicable to them by citing old orders of high courts and information commissions. In our country Constitution is supreme. Nothing is more important than the Constitution. Once there is an amendment in the constitution, the changes are applicable to each and everyone concerned. It would not be wrong to say that the cooperative institutions are dishonoring the Constitution by claiming that the RTI is not applicable to them.

The new reality that RTI is applicable to all cooperative institutes was disclosed for the first time in the country in a column in a daily newspaper, 'Pudhari'. After the article was published, many experts in the field of cooperatives telephoned this writer and debated the issue. But nobody disproved the fact that RTI is applicable to cooperatives. Those who called me raised three points –

1)      Now, the constitution has given us more autonomy

2)      As it is mentioned in the constitution to provide information to members of the cooperative and not to others, it is not binding on us to provide information to those other than members

3)      The state government has not given us any instructions in this regard

4)      Due to the constitutional amendment, small cooperatives as well as cooperative housing societies will find it difficult to operate

Some persons even claimed that they would resort to different ways and would also try to keep cooperatives out of purview of RTI by making one more constitutional amendment.

Before dealing with the points mentioned above, it is necessary to know why the parliament made amendment in the constitution to make it a fundamental right to form a cooperative institute ? Why the cooperatives were given status of autonomous institutes and its office bearers were given so much importance by including cooperatives in the article nine of the constitution?

Cooperative institutes have a major share in the economy of our country and the people at grass roots level have a significant stake in them. Cooperative institutes are combination of government institutes and private bodies. Hence, till now these institutes enjoyed many benefits like government's equity, loan, guarantee to loan just as government agencies but they acted like private bodies when it came to management and accountability. As a result billions of rupees by way of government equity, loan and loan guarantee were wasted and at the same time, billions of rupees of private investment by common people were misappropriated.

These problems were there due to corruption by those who run cooperative institutes as well as due to untrained and unprofessional management in some institutes. So, the image of cooperative institutes was not good. As the 97th constitutional amendment was made, cooperatives were included in the constitution so as to ensure that the government funds were properly utilized, there would be a control on it, these institutes were run professionally, people should feel confident about them and to provide a status and respect to the cooperatives and their office bearers.

Those who claim that the cooperatives are out of purview of RTI because the Constitution has given them more autonomy should take in to account the fact that the local self government bodies like the Gram Panchayats, Nagar Palikas and Municipal Corporations are autonomous and still the RTI is applicable to them.

Directors of some cooperatives have been taking a stand that RTI is not applicable to these institutes as they are not funded by the government. This claim was alright before the constitutional amendment but as the cooperatives have now got a status of autonomous institutes under the Constitution, the RTI is applicable even if there is government funding or not.

Some have taken a stand that it is mentioned in the constitution that members of the cooperatives should be provided information and there is no mention about providing information to others. So it is not obligatory to provide information to those other than members. This stand is also wrong as it is legally binding on directors of every cooperative institute to provide information to members but it does not mean that others do not have a right to get information under RTI. The right of members to get information from their cooperatives is underlined in the constitution. So, it is a constitutional right of members while others have got that right due to Right to Information Act, 2005.

If we consider meaning of autonomy of cooperatives in view of these institutes considering the points raised above, what do we find? They think that autonomy means they are under nobody's control and there is no obligation on them to provide information to anybody except the members. What will happen if this notion is implemented in practice? Let's consider an example of a cooperative credit society. What if somebody misappropriates the funds gathered from public? Because these directors think that right to information is only for members of the cooperative institute and not to others, members may not raise the issue of misappropriation as they would be involved in it and others would not have access to the information. Then why the Constitution has been amended? Is to ensure smooth functioning of cooperative institutes or is it to allow some people to form gangs through cooperative institutes?

Some persons have taken a stand that the RTI is not applicable to them as they have not received any instructions from the state government. The state government has made changes in the Maharashtra Cooperatives Act as per the constitutional amendment. Once the law is changed there is no need to instructions regarding it. It is expected that all those concerned would act as per the changed law. Of course in this case, the information commissions should take an initiative and compel the cooperative institutes to appoint public information officers and appellate authorities.

There is some truth in the claim that the constitutional amendment is stringent and it would become difficult for small cooperatives and cooperative housing societies to operate. But one has to accept some limitations if one want status and authority. Also, the government can not suspend those institutes which are not funded by it, so they need not worry about it.

Box –

Account holders of some cooperative banks expressed satisfaction about RTI becoming applicable to cooperative institutes. Many cooperative banks and other cooperative institutes in the country have doomed due to misappropriation. Many institutes were put under liquidation and administrators were appointed on many. But surprisingly in all these cases, it was only members and depositors who suffered heavy loss. It was rare that directors of such institutes had to suffer. It was found that some 'Dabang' depositors had withdrawn their deposits overnight after the announcement of appointment of an administrator was made and before he took charge. Now, such cases would be exposed due to RTI and those who misappropriated depositors' money would also be exposed.

Forming Co Operative society now fundamental right With status of local self Government, under ambit of RTI act

With the enactment of the 97^th amendment to the Constitution of India and its inclusion in Part IX of the Constitution, formation of cooperative societies has become one of the fundamental rights of an Indian citizen. Cooperative societies have thus come under the ambit of The Right to Information Act. Cooperative societies normally include cooperative banks, credit societies, sugar factories, distilleries, handloom-power loom factories, distilleries, milk producing societies, water supply societies etc. Henceforth, all such institutions will have to appoint public information officers, appellate authorities and comply all the provisions of the RTI act. This is the most revolutionary event in the history of our country in the recent past.

Normally there are three sectors of industries; Public, private and cooperative sectors. The first one is wholly owned by a state or the central government and the governments have complete control over its investments and management and it is accountable to the governments as well as to the public. Although the private sector abides by the laws, rules and regulations of the governments it is not answerable or accountable to the governments or the public for the losses/profits or management. It is accountable only to its owners or shareholders as per the law of the land. The cooperative sector was a blend of the public and private sectors. So far, it was enjoying the facilities available to the public sector such as loans, share capital from the state etc. but was not accountable to the state or the public. With the 97^th amendment, the scenario has changed and the cooperative sector is now accountable to the state and the public.

Article 19 of the Constitution of India protects certain fundamental rights of the citizens. All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms, to form associations or unions, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Now forming a cooperative society is also fundamental right. Not only  that , as per article 43B of Part IV it is now the duty of the States to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of cooperative societies to encourage economic activities of cooperatives which in turn help progress of rural India.

Part IX of the Constitution consists local self-governments. Part IX is about panchayats, Part IX B is about municipalities and now with insertion of Part IX C, cooperative societies have acquired the status of local self-governments. Correspondingly, cooperative societies have come under the RTI Act.

So far, there was no clarity about the applicability of the RTI Act to cooperative societies. Several information commissions and courts had given contradictory verdicts on this matter. Cooperative societies were out of the ambit of the RTI Act because it was not an ‘authority’ or ‘body’ or an ‘institution’ of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution. Hence, attempts to bring a cooperative society under the RTI Act, claiming it to be an ‘institute’, a ‘body owned, controlled or substantially financed by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government’ failed. In addition, authorities of these institutes always took the stand that they did not come under the RTI act.

In reality, considerable part of the country’s economy is occupied by the cooperative sector. It is said that about 1/6^th of this part is of Maharashtra. A major part of Maharashtra politics is also influenced by cooperative sector. The scale of illegalities, scams and corruption in this sector is also high. The cooperative sector including banks and societies block substantial government funds going into hundreds of crores.

Anarchy in this sector is so high that current statistics of cooperative societies in the state and the country are not easily available. The statistics of the department of cooperative societies of Maharashtra in 2009-10 show that there were 2,18,320 cooperative societies in Maharashtra and the total membership of these societies was five crores forty-two lakhs. One estimate of the number of societies is at about 2,30,000 with a membership of about six and half crores. For the entire country, this number could go up to six and half lakh societies with thirty crores members.

A giant sector such as this was uncontrolled and unaccountable till now. One can hope that this sector will move in a positive direction after the 97th amendment to the constitution. After the amendment was enacted, a period of one year was given to the States to amend as well as repeal existing provisions of law to bring in line with the new provisions in the Constitution. Usually, State Assemblies approve such amendment. However, as the assembly was not in session, the Government of Maharashtra introduced an ordinance on 15 February 2013 and thus these amendments have now become law.

The highlights of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules after amendments are:

(i)                      Incorporation of cooperative societies on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member control, member economic participation and autonomous functions;

(ii)                    Conduct of election of a cooperative society by an independent electoral authority;

(iii)                  A fixed term of five years for the office bearers of the cooperative society;

(iv)                  Supersession of Board of cooperative society for a period of not exceeding six months;

(v)                    Independent professional audit of the cooperative societies;

(vi)                  Convening of the General Body meeting of every cooperative society within a period of six months of the close of the financial year;

(vii)                Access to every member of the society to the books, information and the accounts of the cooperative society;

(viii)              Filing of the returns by every cooperative society within six months of the close of every financial year;

(ix)                  Free, fair, impartial and timely elections of cooperative societies by independent body .

(x)                    Audit of the cooperative societies to be carried by the auditors from the government approved panel of auditors or firms;

(xi)                  Maximum number of 21 Directors to be applicable to all cooperative societies irrespective of their size with two seats reserved for women; and

(xii)                Co-opted members not to be eligible to be elected as office-bearers of the Board.

Also there are provisions of penalty for consistent defaults, acting against the interest of the institution, deadlock in the board of directors, not ordering elections within specified time, corruption, irregularities in duty, deliberately giving false information, disobeying orders of authorities etc.

P.S.

Before 1992, panchayats  and municipalities were also not bodies established by or under the Constitution. However, that did not mean that there were no panchayats or municipalities. These institutes as well as laws were very much in existence. But due to the autonomous status. their functioning was arbitrary. They did not acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people's bodies due to varied reasons including   absence of regular elections, prolonged supersession, insufficient representation of the weaker sections etc.

Hence, to give certainty, continuity, and strength to panchayat raj with 73^rd amendment, Part IX was inserted in the Constitution. Later as Urban Local Bodies were not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-government, with the 74^th Amendment, Part IX B was inserted to give municipalities a status and dignity. Now with the 97^th Amendment, Part IX B has been inserted to give cooperative societies a status of local self-government.

As per RTI Act section 2 (h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,

 and now as per section 2 (h) (a) of RTI act, Cooperative Societies have become an “authority” or “body” or “institution of self-government” established or constituted by or under the Constitution and hence are under the ambit of the RTI Act.

Government can be pro - people - Andhra Pradesh experience

 Participants of a recent convention in Hyderabad of Right to Information (RTI) activists were amazed by the pro – people attitude of government servants of Andhra Pradesh. Normally, government officers are seen to prefer to stay away from RTI and activists working for it. In the state of Maharashtra almost all officers seem to believe that they belong to the government so need not attend events related to RTI as they are not related to it. On the contrary officers in Andhra Pradesh seemed to be of a view that it was their responsibility to implement the RTI and they should communicate with social activists to remove errors in the implementation. And they just don't have that policy but also they are seen to implement it.

 It does not mean that all is well in Andhra Pradesh. It also does not mean that there is total eradication of corruption. It also does not mean there are no complaints of officers about misuse of RTI. There are some complaints but officers do not make an issue of it. There is more emphasis on grievance redressal of RTI applicants. So, they do not seem to have given overwhelming importance to minor issues like word limit in RTI application or only one subject in one application. A committee has been formed under chairmanship of the state chief secretary to ensure proper implementation of RTI and to solve problems related to it. Interestingly, two NGOs have been included in the committee as members. A cell has been formed to ensure maximum use of RTI so that good governance and transparency would be encouraged as well as accountability would be fixed. The cell has been entrusted with communicating with NGOs, media, other institutes and personalities regarding RTI. It appears that there is better implementation of good governance and proactive disclosure of information by the government.

A national convention was organized in Hyderabad by National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) in the campus of Andhra Pradesh Academy of Rural Development (APARD). Although the convention was organized by NCPRI, officers of Andhra Pradesh were proactively helping in its organization as if they were the hosts. APARD is an institute where training about rural development is imparted. The institute imparts training to 2.6 lakh people's representatives and about fifty thousand government officers so that there rural poor would benefit from government schemes.

 The convention of activists was attended by former central chief information commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah, former chief election commissioner James Lingdoh, former chief state information commissioner of Andhra Pradesh Jannat Hussain, rural development minister of AP D. M. Varaprasad Rao, additional chief secretary of union rural development ministry S. M. Vijayanand, principal secretary of rural development department of AP Reddy Subramaniam and APARD commissioner K Chandramauli. Directors of social audit departments of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa were present for the convention. It was also attended by social audit tribunals of Manipur, Kerala and Gujarat. About 300 activists from 19 states were present for the convention.

 Activists were pleasantly surprised by the pro – people approach of government officers of Andhra Pradesh. But they were more impressed by the practice of doing social audit of government works. Social audit means audit of government schemes or projects done by beneficiaries or those concerned regarding quality of work, its utility, expenditure and accountability. Andhra Pradesh is the only state in the country which has a special law for social audit of government schemes. The Act is called 'Andhra Pradesh Promotion of Social Audit and Prevention of Corrupt Practices' and it is in effect since 2011. There is a provision of imprisonment up to two years of the guilty for lacuna in the work. It is noteworthy that social audit report is read publicly in presence of all concerned and the accused are given an opportunity to present their case.

 Social audit does not mean only a fault finding mechanism. Thanks to it common man gets directly associated with government work and the belief in the democracy is deepened. It helps in empowerment of common man and ensures transparency in the work. As the social audit reports are read in village meetings, all records, ground reality and utility of work are reviewed threadbare. So, there is no scope for mistakes. After the law was implemented in Andhra Pradesh, misappropriation of Rs. 99.87 crore in implementation of various works under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) was exposed. Out of that amount of Rs. 21.76 crore was recovered. Irregularity in work of 16688 employees was found. On the basis of social audit report, 3111 employees were removed from service, 561 employees were suspended, 229 FIRs were filed and divisional inquiry was launched against 1557 employees. This statistics is impressive.

 Although all these developments took place due to social pressure, one should not ignore positive attitude of rulers and government officers. It is widely believed that rulers and officers of Indian Administrative Services are the same everywhere, but then how come they are public oriented only in Andhra Pradesh and why it is not the case anywhere else? Attending this convention or such other conventions can not be a criterion of being pro people. But it helps to know what is happening elsewhere and where are we lacking. One can make improvements accordingly. In that respect, Maharashtra officers were conspicuous by their absence. Can't help, it is a matter of attitude.

Literary geniuses of Mantralaya, a case of wasted talents

State Governments all over India keep issuing numerous circulars. They are the same everywhere. Never implemented. It becomes a case of “you tell me the person and I shall tell you the circular”, thus putting into action only those circulars, which benefit the officers or their cronies. Others are thrown in the waste paper basket and none feels bad or sad about it. The circulars are cleverly drafted. If some issue is to be evaded, then the choice of words is so 'creative' as to abash even a litterateur. Perhaps these circulars would pass off as pieces of excellent literary talent.

Here’s how. Consider the case of Maharashtra. Many circulars were issued from Mantralaya of Maharashtra since 1996 to express commitment to eradicate corruption and illegalities. Right to Information (RTI) Act was introduced soon afterwards. There was a provision for stringent action against illegalities exposed through the use of RTI. So far, 13 circulars have been issued for action against those involved in corruption and illegalities. These circulars are well drafted comparable with the masterpieces in literary art! But there has been no action as a result of a single circular. If you query officers about any problem, they immediately draw attention to these thirteen circulars and boast about their commitment to eradicate corruption and illegalities.

The Government has issued a large number of circulars for better implementation of the RTI Act but there has not been any implementation based on these circulars. Of course, there never was any possibility of execution because the drafting was so skilful that the officers, by reading between the lines, got the message that the circulars are not for implementation.

As per section 25 (3) of RTI Act, 2005, public authorities are supposed to furnish following information in the form of a report to the state information commission every year.

Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates –

(a) The number of requests made to each public authority;

(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;

(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;

(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;

(f) any facts, which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;

(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information

A circular was issued in January 2006 instructing that the above information shall be provided to the information commission by 15^th of every month. Some formats were prepared for providing this information. But no format was prepared for sub section (g) above while the same information is provided every year for sub section (f) as nobody makes any effort “to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act”! No format was prepared for providing information about disciplinary action against any officer for non-implementation of RTI Act. So, the information commission does not get any follow-up on its orders of punishments by fine and disciplinary actions. The commission has sent many letters to the state government but the response has just been to issue more circulars.

The story about implementation of section 4 of RTI Act is no different. The State Information Commission has written many letters to the state government about non-implementation of Section 4. The state government had issued many circulars in this regard. But nothing concrete happened. So, the then chief information commissioner issued a letter to the state government that the commission would take a serious note if the omission continues. Accordingly, the state government also took 'serious' cognizance of this letter and issued a circular in January 2011 saying that department heads should take disciplinary action against the concerned officers if Section 4 was not implemented. The message was stern. But the babus in Mantralaya folded the circular and attached it to the file in Mantralaya. Ultimately no action has been taken against any one and implementation of Section 4 languishes as ever.

On taking over the reins of office, the incumbent chief state information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad sent a letter on June 18^th, 2012 giving a list of steps not taken regarding RTI Act expressing unhappiness that these steps were not taken even after seven years of the introduction of RTI Act, 2005. The state government routinely issued a circular on August 22^nd, 2012 asking the public authorities to take action as per suggestions by the chief state information commissioner and review its compliance regularly. But there is still no action!

As per section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, information commission punishes the public information officer (PIO) with a fine if, in its view, the PIO has refused to accept an application for information, if he has not provided information by the stipulated time period or deliberately provided wrong, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed the information asked for or in any way created hurdles in providing information. Information commissions have levied such fines in many cases so far. But no information is provided to the commission whether the fines have been actually recovered. Even the commission’s orders for compliance are being ignored. Ratnakar Gaikwad has sent a letter to the state government on August 17^th, 2012 expressing his displeasure and asking the government to issue orders to the public authorities to recover fines imposed upon the PIOs. The government immediately issued instructions under another related circular on September 4^th, 2012.  But there is no visible action on this circular to obey previous circulars!.

P.S.

As per section 20 (1), the amount of fine is supposed to be recovered from salary of the officers concerned and it is expected that the information commission should demand a compliance report in respect of fines imposed or disciplinary actions against PIOs or others. There is a greater chance of compliance if the information commissions ask for compliance reports. Also, it is mandatory for public authorities under Section 25 (3) to provide information to the information commission about the amounts recovered from fines. Accordingly a note is to be made in the annual report of the central information commission. But Maharashtra State Government does not provide this information. In fact every public authority is supposed to report to the information commission under section 25 (3) (e) about recovery of fines. Such information is provided at the Central Government level but not in the state of Maharashtra. Why? Is RTI Act 2005 not applicable to Maharashtra or is Maharashtra under a different RTI Act?

Generally, information commissions order recovery of fines from salary, which is the appropriate manner. The state chief information commissioner has informed the state government accordingly. However, in Pune Bench of the state information commission, public information officers are instructed to deposit the amount of fines directly in the government treasury. The Pune Bench sends a copy of the order to the immediate senior officers concerned for compliance of the order. However there is no verification whether the PIO has actually paid the fine amount himself or 'someone' else deposited it on his behalf. And the question of senior officers concerned sending a compliance report does not arise because it is not asked for. After a fuss was made about it, it is reported that the Pune Bench would ask for a compliance report separately.

RTI applicant doesn't get the information, who cares ?

Vijay Palande from Karanje village of Satara district has a few acres of vatan land in Satara. He claims that it has been possessed illegally by some people and believes that if he obtains authentic documents he can claim the land back.

So he filed several RTI applications with Satara’s tehsildar, giving full details of the documents relevant to the issue. The information he asked for, falls in “A" category of preservation of documents manual i.e. the record is supposed to be preserved permanently .As usual, he received vague responses from the PIO, like documents were not found hence his application was being disposed off; for some applications, information supplied was said to be incomplete and; for some first appeals, the appellate authority didn't even bother  to respond at all or after hearing  didn't pass any order. Hence, Palande  filed second appeals with the Pune bench of Maharashtra information commission.

SIC M.H Shaha without even placing the appeals for hearing passed the following orders:

1) First Appellate Authority to pass the quasi judicial order within 21 days from date of this order after giving prior notice to PIO and the applicant. FAA should hear the written / oral submissions of both of them and try to satisfy the applicant to the maximum. Also, FAA should record its findings in case of any delay in response to the RTI application.

2) FAA should follow this order expeditiously  and pass the self explanatory order as per State government circular no ke.ma.a - 2007 /1182 /pra.kra  65 / 07 /6 DT 12/12//2007 Otherwise he will be liable to be penalised  for disobeying section 19 (1) of RTI Act  and government circular.

3) This second appeal is being disposed off.

 Not only in this case, but in so many other cases also, SIC Pune has passed the same type of orders without hearing the appeals. Actually, while deciding the second appeal SIC is supposed to pass the order regarding supply of information after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties; start the penalty proceedings if required after show cause notice to the PIO; order to file the police complaint if the information was not found. Instead, the SIC was satisfied by shifting the responsibility.

There is even remotely nothing about any penalty provision for PIO or FAA in the circular mentioned by SIC. It merely says:

1)As per above mentioned  Section of RTI act ( i.e. section 19) it has been brought to the notice of the government by state information commission that in 45 % of first appeals, FAA's do not pass the orders after hearing the appeals or do not  give opportunity of hearing to applicants. This amounts to FAA's not following the duties imposed upon them under RTI Act. Subsequently, applicants are being harassed and are not getting justice. This also amounts to increase in second appeals and work load on SIC.

2) As per RTI Act, the first appeals filed before FAA's of ministry and ministerial departments are of quasi judicial nature and hence while hearing those, principle of natural justice must be followed. FAA should give opportunity of hearing to applicant before deciding the appeals

3) Taking into consideration above facts, before deciding the first appeal, he should ensure that to get opportunity of hearing, the applicant must receive the notice at least seven days prior to hearing. Orders passed by FAA should be self-explanatory. Notice must be sent by `under certificate of posting’. Applicant on his own or through his representative can attend the hearing or may choose not to attend it is .This will enhance the principle of natural justice and will help strict implementation of RTI act in the state.

In this circular there is nothing mentioned about any penalty - it is a very meaningless and harmless circular. And even if penalty is to be imposed for not following this circular, the right of doing so certainly does not rest with SIC.

SIC has also threatened to penalise FAA for not following provisions of Section 19 (1) of RTI Act. It is difficult to understand under what provisions SIC can penalise FAA and how FAA has disobeyed Section 19 (1). Section 19 (1) merely says Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

Now what has FAA not followed? He has received the appeal as per the provision, then on what grounds can he be penalised? In addition, who has the authority? The next point is, suppose as per SIC orders, FAA mentions findings regarding delay in supplying the information by PIO, to whom will he report those findings?  SIC hasn't called for any compliance report and the second appeal has been disposed off. Then how , why and who  will unnecessary  report the findings which are not asked for ?

 Now as the appeal is disposed off without calling any compliance report why will PIO or FAA follow SIC orders? Why will anybody comply? SIC does not have any powers to review disposed off appeals. The appellant does not have any authority to  appeal once again on the same appeal which already has been decided.

Three things happen because of such type of  decisions 1) No need remains to provide any information to applicant 2) even after disobeying RTI Act , PIO and appellate authorities go scot free 3)Even after giving such unproductive decisions, SICs are ready to pat their own back.

Now, the only question remains of the applicant. But who cares? What is the big deal if he does not get the information? Why should he be given so much importance? What difference does it make if he doesn't get the required information? What utmost can he do if justice has been denied to him? If he really requires the information, let him go the High Court, or file the complaint under 18 of RTI for non-compliance of SIC orders. However, even if he lodges a complaint under Section 18, chances of getting information are minimal because under this section SIC has no power to order for supply of information.

ends

Foul start by Maharashtra SIC

Namaskar! Best wishes to you all for the New Year. By the end of last year, I had decided to wish that all of you should get information easily and effortlessly under RTI in the New Year. However, unfortunately, the New Year 2013 had a foul start. There were shocking incidents in the very first week of the New Year. These incidents will compel us, all who believe in RTI to introspect and to wonder about the future.

One shocking incident was that of an arrest of a government servant who asked for a bribe to provide information under RTI. This incident, which will make the state of Maharashtra to feel ashamed of, took place in the district collectorate of Pune. Until now, there was a feeling that Babus are afraid of the citizens who demand information under RTI. But the shocking incident in the district collectorate would lead to realize the reality. For some time since last year, one could feel that the government servants were becoming immune to RTI and they no more respected the law. The incident in the Pune district collectorate was a concrete proof of how the government servants are showing disrespect to RTI.

A businessperson named Mayuresh Argade wanted information about land record. He used RTI and demanded copies of a register with record of land acquired for Temghar project. One Awghade, who is a clerk in the district rehabilitation office, asked to pay Rs. 416 for the copies of the document. Accordingly, the businessperson paid the amount and presented the receipt of Rs. 416 to Awghade. But perhaps Awghade was not used to doing duty only after the due legal fee is paid. According to reports, Awghade demanded bribe of Rs. 3000 to provide the information under RTI. Argade, the businessperson realized that he was not likely to get information unless he pays the 'unofficial fee' to the clerk. He engaged the clerk in negotiation, succeeded in reducing the amount of bribe to Rs. 2000 and simultaneously filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). A trap was laid and the clerk Awghade, who demanded bribe for giving information under RTI, was arrested by ACB.

Thanks to the businessperson who bothered to file a complaint with ACB, the malpractice of asking bribe even to implement RTI came to fore. Unfortunately, it is not the only one and exceptional case in the state of Maharashtra of harassing applicants who demand information under RTI. There have been hundreds of such public servants who never hesitate to put common man in trouble. They do not hesitate to ask for a bribe even from those who demand information under RTI. As the common man, is already troubled with the system, he prefers to get the work done by paying a bribe instead of challenging the authority and suffering from delay.

Earlier babus used to be afraid of the citizens who demanded information under RTI. But now they dare to even ask for a bribe from citizens to provide information. Why such a change has taken place?

Earlier the government servants were afraid of the RTI Act as they thought they would be penalised if they do not provide information. Under the provisions of RTI, the information commissioner is empowered to penalise officers of public authorities if they do not follow the law. In my opinion, the reason behind the recent trend of government employees not being afraid of the RTI is that they have now realised that the Information Commissioners would not penalise them even if they dishonour RTI act as well as information commissions. The loss of deterrence of RTI is the worrying trend and I think the State Information Commissioners are responsible for the same.

I will cite two decisions of State Information Commissioners in Maharashtra as follows regarding my opinion. The orders, originally written in Marathi are produced here as they are for consideration.

Decision 1 –

Appellant – Present

Public Information Officer – Not present

Appellate authority – Not present

Date on which original application was filed – 19/7/2011

Date on which PIO gave a reply –

Date of first appeal – 12/9/2011

Date on which the appellate authority gave an order –

In this case the applicant had asked for information under section 6 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 from the public information officer by way of an application dated 19/7/2011. He had filed the first appeal with the appellate authority on 12/9/2011.

The applicant informed that he did not get information he had asked by his application dated 19/7/2011.

It is being ordered that the public information officer should allow the applicant to inspect all documents regarding information he had sought and provide information by 15/1/2013 under section 5 (4) by coordinating with other officers, if needed.

In this case the public information officer has made a delay in providing information and hence till 15/1/2013, the applicant should be provided information which the applicant had asked for under section 7 (6) of Right to Information Act, 2005 and which is available, by way of inspection of documents and without payment.

Order – the appeal is disposed off.

Here in this case, the public information officer or the appellate authority did not bother about the RTI application or appeal filed before them. They even did not have the courtesy to attend the hearing of an appeal before the information commission. But the commission in its order has not dealt with some basic questions like, what was the information, the applicant had sought for? What were the reasons behind not furnishing the information by the PIO? Why did not the appellate authority conduct hearing on the first appeal? Why the PIO and the appellate authority were not present for the hearing before the information commission?

The PIO in this case did not provide information under RTI. He did not even give a reply to the application under RTI. Yet in this case the commission did not issue show cause notice to him. I wonder whether a PIO who did not bother about the RTI application and who threw the notice of the commission to attend to hearing to the dustbin, will ever provide information just because the commission has given an order to do so. Will he respond to such a vague order?

Now let us consider the decision number 2

Date of original application – 5/8/2011

Date of reply by PIO –

Date of the first appeal – 18/9/2011

Date of the decision by the appellate authority – 17/7/2012

Applicant had demanded information from the PIO on 5/8/2011 under section 6(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005. As the PIO did not provide information within stipulated time limit, the applicant filed the first appeal on 18/9/2011. The first information office by his order on 17/7/2012 disposed off the application as the PIO had given proper information.

The applicant informed that he has not received information he had sought by his application dated 5/8/2011. On his statement, the Public Information Officer said that the Santa Cruz and Bhoiwada Police Stations have given the applicant available documents. In addition, the applicant was given the opportunity to inspect documents.

It seems that there is no such a situation that the applicant was not provided information.

Order – the application is disposed off

Even in this order, there is no discussion about important questions like, what information was asked for by the applicant? What was the reality when the applicant said that he did not get information while the PIO said that the information was provided? When did the PIO provide information? What was the information asked for? What was the information, which was given, and what was the information, which was not given? Should the information which was not given was supposed to be given?

The order says that the information was given but there is no mention of the date on which the information was given, so it is not discussed whether there was any delay in provision of information. It seems that the claim of the public information officer that he provided information has been accepted by trusting his words. In such a case, there is a distant possibility that fine would be imposed in such a situation. The commission has not even made a comment on the fact that the appellate authority conducted hearing on the first appeal after ten months.

If the information commissioners are so considerate then why should PIOs bother about applications under RTI? No wonders elements like Awghade take advantage of the situation?

Incidentally, these two decisions were given at the very beginning of the year on January 1st, 2013. Are these best wishes for New Year by the information commission to the public at large in the state or to the elements like the clerk who demanded bribe to give information under RTI?