As entire ministry of Maharashtra involved in corruption, ACB takes lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits

It seems that after finding entire ministry of Maharashtra involved in corruption Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has taken lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits. Initially ACB removed list of persons against whom it had asked for permission of open Inquiry. After inquiry from media persons ACB once again uploaded the list but without designations and clear names of culprits, so that their identity should not be revealed easily.

There are several cases pending in mantralay of Maharashtra in which ACB has sought permission for open inquiry. After receiving complaints against any public servant for alleged corruption, benami properties, misappropriation of funds etc., ACB first conducts discreet inquiry and if found complaint is true then it goes for open inquiry and for open inquiry it has to seek government’s permission. However as the persons involved in such case are always high profile bureaucrats and ministers government always reluctant to give such permission. ACB is waiting for permission in several such cases .

If we look at the list of ministries involved from whom ACB has sought permission, one can easily say that entire ministry of Maharashtra is involved in it. It seems that’s why ACB has taken lenient stand on disclosing Identities of culprits. Initially ACB removed list of persons against whom it had asked for permission of open Inquiry. After inquiry from media persons ACB once again uploaded the list but without designations and clear names of culprits, so that their identity should not be revealed easily. This list is available here. And the earlier list is reproduced below. What does it show?

As per rules after complaint is received ACB has to complete entire inquiry in six months, however as the persons involved in such cases are always high profile bureaucrats and ministers government is always reluctant to give such permission. In other words it can be said that that government doesn’t give such permission because it has tacit consent to such acts ,  hence request for permission of inquiry remains ending months together or denied , and culprits pretend as if nothing had happened.

Government and Information Commission of Maharashtra misrepresented the facts

Literary geniuses (LG) of Maharashtra mantralay have recently issued a circular about compliance of section 4 of The RTI act. These LG’s are expert in avoiding any issue that is embarrassing to the Government. That means in case of any serous agitation, Fast, rally or media news about anything they promptly issue a well drafted circular to calm the issue temporarily.

In a circular issued On  9^th of this month government has mentioned that , The central RTI act came in to force on 12^th October 2005 It was necessary for all the public authorities to comply and update information on 17 points in section 4 (1) (b) of this act 120 days before it was introduced. Government has repeatedly issued many orders to public authorities in this matter, however it is observed that many public authorities  have still not complied with section 4 of RTI act, hence again following orders is being issued.                                                                                                                 

The public authorities (PA) that  have not prepared information on 17 points of section 4 (1) (b) of RTI act and published it on website, PA’s that have not appointed CPIO’s ,  PIO’s  and AA’s put their names on board are directed to this on priority. All the administrative departments to follow up of this matter with the PA’s under their control, all the PA’s should update their website. All the PA’s should send compliance report to their concerned departments as per directions in this circular.

There is nothing new in this circular, such types of of circulars are so innocent that whether complied or not it makes no difference. In fact one can say that there is always hidden direction in such circular that they should not be complied with.

Now see this, Social activists and information commission time and again keep complaining to the government about non compliance of RTI act. In first quarter of RTI act noted social activist Anna Hazare met chief minister (CM)  of Maharashtra on this issue .Obviously it is always necessary for CM to show displeasure after Anna’s complaint  on any issue, accordingly CM expressed his ‘serious displeasure” on non compliance of RTI act. Promptly literary genius of mantralay on 5^th may 2008 through a fresh circular communicated CM’s “ serious displeasure “ to all the public authorities and asked them about compliance of RTI act. There after nothing happened.

There after something happened and on 24 July 2009 present State information commissioner and then principle secretary to the government on Maharashtra Mrs.T.M. Thekkekara issued a fresh circular on same issue. However this time circular was bit tough (?) one. This time there was threat of mentioning non compliance in Confidential Reports of officers if direction were not complied before 31 august 2009. As usual nobody nobody took cognizance of this circular also.

Interestingly during period of Mrs. Thekkekaras’s and earlier circulars, all the information commissioners who are presently working in information commission of Maharashtra were serving on key posts in the government. However nobody bothered about compliance of any circular. As if they knew that their such behaviour will only make them eligible in future for information commissioner’s post. Accordingly same thing happened,. All these people applied for the post of Information commissioners pretending themselves “ person of eminence” and another High Power committee of persons of eminence headed by CM , deputy CM and leader of opposition agreed with and recommended their names and accordingly governor appointed them as Information commissioners.       

Present information commission has several times  has warned of serious action against all the public authorities for non compliance of RTI act, however till today non of them has taken it seriously, because public authorities know that all the present commissioners were their former bosses and equally responsible for  non compliance of the act, hence they didn’t take cognisance of any warning.

Through 9^th may circular  government has confessed that even in ninth year of RTI act  many public authorities have not complied with section 4, have not appointed CPIO, PIO and AA’s , even then since last many year government claims that 95% of the applicants get the desired information. Information commission is echoing the same thing. However in absence of adequate CPIO’s, PIO’s and AA’s how it is possible that 95% applicants got the information? .That means government and commission both misrepresented the facts and hence they have to clarify on it or apologize to the citizens of Maharashtra.

How did Public authority send a document to late RTI activist Vilas Baravkar via facility that was already withdrawn ?

Few days back RTI activist Vilas Baravkar committed suicide. He had left a suicide note naming some politicians and Bureaucrats. After this incident on 26/03/2014 state information Commission, Pune bench had ordered District collector, Pune police , Inspector general of Police and zilla Parishad to place all the information Shree. Barawakr had asked on their websites.Only pune collector has followed SIC orders and put some information on its website. However this information is incomplete and vague. In such cases every Public authority is supposed to put all the information including deceased activist’s applications, appeals, information provided to him and all the related correspondence on website. ( off course subject to other sections of RTI act).However it is not done so.

At this stage I don’t want to blame anybody, However one document in this information reflects that at the end of March 2011 concerned office had sent it to shree Baravkar by Under certificate of posting ( U.C.P Or popularly known as U.P.C). Most important thing is on 31 January 2011 Department of posts and telegraphs had withdrawn this facility, then how come that office sent said document to Baravkar by U.P.C ?. It is serious .Hence I request both of you to conduct thorough inquiry in this matter and see that all the information Mr . Baravkar had asked made public. Under section 18 of RTI act you have ample powers for summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office, issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents etc..  As well most of the information  Baravkar had asked falls under section 4 of the RTI act, hence please make sure that the officers who didn't comply section 4 get penalized.

काही दिवसांपूर्वी माहिती अधिकारी कार्यकर्ते विलास बारावकर यांनी आत्महत्या केली होती. आत्महत्ये पूर्वी त्यांनी स्टॉम्पपेपर वर सुसाईड नोट लिहून ठेवली होती.याप्रकरणी राज्य माहिती आयुक्त पुणे खंडपिठ यांनी २७/३/२०१४ रोजी जिल्हाधिकारी,पुणे पोलिस , जिल्हा परिषद, रायगड पोलिस यांना पत्र पाठवून विलास बारावकर यांनी मागीतलेली सर्व माहिती संकेतस्थळावर ठेवण्याचे आदेश संबधितांना दिले होते. पैकी जिल्हाधिकारी पुणे यांनी काही माहिती संकेतस्थळावर ठेवली आहे मात्र ती खूपच अपूरी आणि अस्पष्ट आहे. सर्व माहिती म्हणजे बारावकर यांनी केलेले सर्व अर्ज ,त्यांना देण्यात आलेली माहिती व संबधित सर्व पत्रव्यवहार संकेतस्थळावर ठेवायला हवा. परंतू तसे करण्यात आलेले नाही.

त्याचप्रमाणे एका ठिकाणी बारावकर यांना मार्च २०११ च्या अखेरीस By U.P.C अंडर पोस्टल सर्टिफिकेट द्वारे माहिती पाठविल्याचा उल्लेख आहे मात्र डाक विभागाने ३१ जानेवारी २०११ रोजी एका विशेष अध्यादेशाद्वारे ही सुविधा बंद केली होती. आत्ता या टप्यावर मला कोणावरही कोणतेही आरोप करायचे नाहीत . मात्र हा प्रकार गंभीर आहे .म्हणूनच आपण या प्रकरणाची स्वत:च्या स्तरावर आणि सत्वर चौकशी करून या प्रकरणातील सर्व माहिती संकेतस्थळावर ठेवली जाईल असे पहावे . या संदर्भात आवश्यकता पडल्यास संबधित यंत्रणांकडून सर्व दफ्तर मागविण्याचा अधिकार माहिती अधिकार अधिनियमानुसार आपणास आहेत. त्याचा वापर करावा हि विनंती.त्याचप्रमाणे बारावकरांनी मागीतलेली बहुतांश माहिती ही माहिती अधिकार अधिनियमातील कलम ४ नुसार संबधिअत प्राधिकरणांनी स्वयंप्रेरणेने प्रकट करावयाची माहिती आहे.त्यामूळे सदर प्रकारची सर्व माहिती संकेतस्थळावर १२ ऑक्टोबर २००५ रोजीच ठेवणे कायद्यानुसार बंधन कारक होते. त्याचे पालन न केल्याबद्दलही सर्व संबधितांवर कारवाई करावी हि विनंती.

Almost 25% voters names deleted from voters list in pune loksabha constituency

Its shocking that  4,23, 952  ( Four lakh twenty three thousand nine hundred and fifty two ) voters names have been deleted in year 2013 and 2014 alone i.e  almost 25% names from the pune loksabha constituencies are deleted and same number has been added in these one and half year only. Election commission says, they had provided the CD’s of deleted persons names to political parties, then why pune’s political parties kept mum on this shocking issue? And is the election a matter of concern only for  political parties and ECI?

Two days back, I had sent a letter to Election commission of India asking them to communicate relevant information to the voters. Election commission has put names of deleted voters from Maharashtra including pune and it’s reasons on website. Though I had requested to put all the forms i.e form 7 , 8 and other forms on website. Commission has only provided facility to search names of deleted persons. Voters can visit https://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/ and search in  “ Deletion List PDFs    Year [2013]    Year [2014]” or , Search Deletion List.

Pune loksabha constituency, Total number of voters name deleted in 2013 -2014 is  4,23,952 ( four lakh twenty three thousand nine hundred and fifty two)

Total number of voters names deleted in year 2013 was 4,09,840( four lakh nine thousand eight hundred and fourty)

https://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/Search/SearchDeletedPDF2013.aspx

          Toatl Number of voters names deleted in 2014 was 14112 ( Fourteen thousand one hundred and twelwe ) https://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/Search/SearchDeletedPDF.aspx

Assembly constituency wise Data of pune loksabha  constituency

Sr No	Assembly constituency	2013 deletion list	2014 deletion list
1	208 Vadgaon Sheri	52799	5182
2	209 Shivajinagar	63986	1799
3	210 Kothrud	72375	3419
4	212 Parvati	64719	776
5	214 Pune cantonment	72533	1661
6	215 kasba peth	83428	1275
Total		409840	14112

Is Election Commission Of India really unbiased ?

Many Public authorities in India have adopted online grievance redressal mechanism. Election Commission of India(ECI) is also amongst them. ECI is responsible for administering all the electoral processes in India. It supposed that under the supervision of the commission, free and fair elections are held. However when it comes to redressal of complaints or grievance, I doubt whether ECI is really unbiased or how? .There is reason why I doubt election commissions procedure.

On 4^th march 2014 I lodged online complaint with election commission of India. Promptly they sent me acknowledgement. Redressal time given to  my complaint was 10 days. However even after 25 days ECI has not taken any decision on my complaint. If there is no substance in complaint they should have disposed it off with reasons. What is point in keeping the complaint hanging? Why 10 days response time was given to me and what happened to it? I had lodged complaint against Pune Divisional commissioner Prabhakar Deshmukh. He has very strongpolitical backing and can easily manipulate the election procedure.

Is this same Vijay Dhumal calling me,who gave life threats to noted RTI activist Shivaji Raut ?

Yesterday there was a miss call on my mobile. I normally don’t make return calls unless I confirm the number. When searched I found that the call was from one Vijay Dhumal from pune. It suddenly struck to my mind that this may or may not be thesame vijay dhumal against whom noted RTI activist Shivaji  Raut had complained to chief minister, homeminister and police dept. Vijay Dhumal's number who called Shivaji Raut was 9822275473 . Internet search shows this number is of Vijarao Dhumal  from pune .I am not mentioning the number from which the person made me call because I am not sure whether the person who called me was same who called Shivaji Raut or not .And to avoid further consequences I don’t want to make return call.

I am not scared, panic or I don’t want the police protection, however I am sharing this with readers just for information.

SIC Pune asks to put entire information on website sought by deceased RTI applicant Vilas Baravkar

State information commission, Pune bench has asked concerned departments to publish all the information sought by RTI applicant late Vilas baravkar, who committed suicide day before yesterday. In its letter to suptd of police (rural) Pune, Suptd of police - Riagad, D G police - Mumbai, collector pune and CEO Zillah parishad - pune, SIC pune Mr.Ravindra Jadhav has asked concerned PIO’s to put the entire information sough by baravkar on their website. The SIC has   provided all the departments list of baravkars pending and disposed appeals. SIC has also asked PIO’s to put all the information on website that is already provided to him.

Vilas Baravkar an RTI applicant from pune commits suicide

Today an RTI applicant Vilas Dattatray Barawkar from Pune districtcommitted suicide. In his suicide note he has written several names. At this stage it is very difficult to comment anything on this issue, however as most of his applications were regarding functioning of police department. Irrespective of the authenticity of allegations it would not be proper for pune rural police to investigate the matter .Today I brought some of baravakars RTI applications from state Information commission, Pune bench . Perusal of which indicates that some of the information he asked may be vague but most of this information falls under section 4 of RTI act. Have look at his applications

What Is logic behind appointments and giving additional charge to SIC's ?

No one can  understand logic behind giving SIC pune bench additional charge to amaravati divisional commissioner Ravindra J Jadhav. It was easy to handle pune bench for brihanmumbai or konkan commissioner,even then they will handle single charge, while ravindra jadhav will handle charge all the way from Amaravati.More over the information regarding this is only in Contact details of SIC, No circular or order regarding this is on SIC website.This not being done for benefit of pune bench.

In last month only pune bench additional charge was given to Aurangabad bench commissioner D.B.Deshpande.He has been now given additional charge of Nagpur bench while it was comparatively easy to handle pune bench for Aurangabad commissioner and Nagpur bench for amaravati commissioner.In the nutshell it is clear that  all this exercise is  being done surely to please some one very High Profile and not for benefit of  Right to Information Act.

Last month the state government had made appointments on three posts of information commissioners in Maharashtra, which were lying vacant for more many months. Ajit Kumar Jain, former Additional Chief Secretary; Ravindra Jadhav, former Secretary of ex-President Pratibha Patil; and Thanksy Thekkekara, former Additional Chief Secretary were appointed as new information commissioners.

The fourth appointment of was of Vasant Patil, superintendent engineer of Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation,but he did not take oath  as the tenure of his current post was  scheduled to end by March. However now the news from corridors of mantralaya is, his resignation has been accepted and any time in next few days he will take oath as a state information commissioner.

Shri Ratnakar Gaikwad

Chief Information Commissioner

State Information Commission

13^th Floor, New Administrative Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.

022 22856078

-

Shri D.B. Deshpande

State Information Commissioner, Aurangabad

State Information Commission,

Small saving Building,
Behind Treasury Office, Aurangabad.

0240 2352133 / 2352544

-

Shri M.H. Shaha

State Information Commissioner, Pune

Maharashtra Information Commission

New Administration Building, 4^th Floor,
Opp. Council Hall, Pune.

020 26050580

-

Shri Ravindra J. Jadhav

State Information Commissioner(Additional Charge), Pune

State Information Commission

New Administration Building, 4^th Floor,
Opp. Council Hall, Pune.

020 26050580

-

Smt. T. F. Thekkekara

State Information Commissioner, Konkan

State Information Commission

5^th Floor, Konkan Bhavan,
C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

022 27570323/27579463/64

-

Shri Ajitkumar Jain

State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai

State Information Commission

Greater Mumbai, 13^th Floor,
New Administration Building, Mantralay, Mumbai.

022 222040086 / 22040095

-

Shri Ravindra J. Jadhav

State Information Commissioner, Amravati

State Information Commission

Bhatkuli Tahsil Office, Camp,
Amravati 444602.

0721/2553172 / 0721/2553173

-

Shri P. W. Patil

State Information Commissioner, Nashik

State Information Commission

Shivneri, 2^nd Floor, Govt. Guest House,
Behind Golf Club, Nashik.

0253 2232764

-

Shri D.B. Deshpande

State Information Commissioner(Additional Charge), Nagpur

State Information Commission

Administrative Building No.2, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.

Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi

Dear Shri Rahuljee Gandhi,

You have announced that the Congress party is serious about fighting against corruption in India. The Congress party has brought several legislations and is in favor of bringing more legislation to fight corruption. I humbly bring to your notice that bringing good legislations alone does not help in fighting against corruption. Implementation of legislation is the key to fight corruption.

The Congress party takes credit for enacting the “Right to Information Act” (RTI). However what about its implementation? In Maharashtra, RTI is in a critical condition. Since last many years, more than half the posts of information commissioners are vacant because the Chief Minister has no time. Hence pendency of second appeals has piled up to 26000. People do not want to file RTI applications because they don’t get the information.

Official reports that 95 % RTI applicants get the desired information are cooked up because the scenario at ground level is exactly the opposite i.e. 95 % applicants do not get the information. There is no transparency in appointment of information commissioners. They are chosen arbitrarily.  The decisions of some information commissioners are so bad that the citizens wonder the information commissioners are appointed to implement the RTI properly or to kill it? The scenario all over India is no different.

Take another example of Maharashtra Prevention of Delay in Discharge of official Duties Act 2005. The act came into force in 2006.  However the rules were issued in this December 2013 i.e. seven years later! More to say, clause 8 in these rules says e-mails shall be acknowledged and the e-mails shall be forwarded to the concerned office or Department or Desk if they do not pertain to the addressee. The applicant is to be intimated accordingly by e-mail. However my e-mails to the chief minister and chief secretary of Maharashtra on their official e-mail IDs bounced! Now you imagine what will be the scenario while implementing this legislation.

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 another the case of Maharashtra. Many circulars were issued from Mantralaya of Maharashtra since 1996 to express commitment to eradicate corruption and illegalities. So far, 11 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.

Shakuntala Bhagat the first beneficiary in Maharashtra, who received health card for Rajiv Gandhi Jeevandayee Arogya Yojana from Smt. Sonia Gandhi, appeared to be a fake. I found major discrepancies in Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) Urban Poor health scheme and Contributory Health scheme. The Health Minister ordered an inquiry in this case after I reported the matter. However, when the inquiry team went to PMC, it was sent back because the orders for the inquiry came from the Health Minister and not from the Urban Development Department. The Urban development department is with Chief Minister and till today there is no order from the CM in this regard.

In nutshell, while bringing good legislation to fight against corruption succeeds only in fooling the public for some time, proper implementation alone will reveal your real intentions.

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.

Co operative societies Not out Of ambit of RTI

The way and timing of news appeared about supreme courts (SC) judgement ( CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013)  about co operative a society (CS) is amazing. In many news papers they have published date of judgement 15 th October. Actually it was given on 7^th October. At least people concerned with RTI knew about it but it was not discussed thoroughly. On 9^th of October Anna Hazare and and Medha Patkar alleged about rupees 10,000 crore scam in the sale of the co-operative sugar factories purchased by the political leaders across parties in Maharashtra. After that lot of news items published in media. That stunned government as well as cooperative mafias .Then suddenly news appeared in media “Cooperatives out of bounds to RTI, rules Supreme Court”.

 If read carefully it is clear that SC has only decided about who should provide the information, and it has made clear that registrar of cooperatives (RoC) is duty bound to provide the information irrespective of whether CS is substantially financed or not. Before one draw any conclusion let us study some of the paragraphs of the said judgement.

In para 12 SC says We are in these appeals concerned only with the cooperative societies registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, which are not owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government or formed, established or constituted by law made by Parliament or State Legislature

 It is well evident from the above para that this judgement is not applicable to only societies above mentioned. Then how one can say that due to SC judgement all societies have come out of RTI ambit.

In para 52 SC says Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent law permits, gather information from a Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather those information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under the Cooperative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for the details of the bank accounts maintained by the citizens or members in a cooperative bank. Only those information which a Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under the Cooperative Societies Act from a Society could be said to be the information which is “held” or “under the control of public authority”. Even those information, Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8(j) of the Act. Apart from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from a Cooperative Bank of a private account maintained by a member of Society under law, in the event of which, in a given situation, the society will have to part with that information. But the demand should have statutory backing.

It is clear from above para that whatever information RoC has and can gather from cooperative societies, he /she is duty bound to furnish it to applicant under RTI act , irrespective of that society is substantially financed or not. The only binding on RoC is to take into consideration section 8 of the RTI act . However that burden was already there.

In para 53 SC says , Consequently, an information which has been sought for relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

From reading of above para it is well clear that SC has sais that even if information is personal one if there is larger public interest RoC may provide that to applicant.

In para 40 SC says The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Public Information Officer, State Chief Information Officer, State Chief Information Commission, Central Public Information Officer etc., when the question comes up for consideration. A body or NGO is also free to establish that it is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government.

And in para 41 SC says Powers have been conferred on the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act to inquire into any complaint received from any person and the reason for the refusal to access to any information requested from a body owned, controlled or substantially financed, or a non-government organization substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government.

From reading para 40 and 41 together one can easily draw the conclusion that if Cooperative society or NGO body owned, controlled or substantially financed then PIO, Information commission have powers to decide over that. In other words if they come to conclusion that concerned CS or NGO is owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government they can declare such organization a public authority. Otherwise registrar of cooperatives is duty bound to furnish the information.

In other words Supreme Court in its recent judgment has only decided about who should provide the information under RTI act , is it Registrar of co operative societies or direct societies and also answered that  RoC is duty bound to supply the information in case CS is not substantially financed or ask society to appoint PIO if satisfied .

University of Pune penalizes students for no fault of theirs.

It seems that University of Pune (UoP) is fond of harassing its students. Times and again it comes with new ideas to do so. Recently there was a big controversy over its circular on obligating students to not to lodge any complaint or make any representation regarding any matter connected with the institution to press or other outside institution/agency etc. without forwarding the same through the Head of the concerned institution. After lot of criticism UoP had to withdraw that.

Now it has come with another Idea of harassing students for no fault of theirs, and that will add lakhs of rupees in UoP’s treasury also. As per circular, last Date for online application for regular convocation was 31stJuly 2013; however Students can fill the online Application for Regular Convocation from 1st August 2013 to 31st August 2013 with late fee charges. The late fee charges for Non-professional course and for professional course are Rs.180 and Rs.245 respectively. These charges are in addition to regulars charges.

Interestingly there are some results that UoP declared after last date of applying for convocation with regular fee.And now it expects students to pay the late fee charges for no fault of theirs. There is lot of anger amongst students over UoP’s this stand. Why should students be penalized for no fault of theirs? Students are not responsible for late results. How come university declared some results including engineering faculty results exactly a day after the last day of applying for convocation with regular fees? Is it a mere coincidence or a deliberate move to collect additional money from students?.

 Thousands of students apply for convocation every year. This year by way of late fee only UoP may collect lakhs and lakhs of rupees. Normally final year students don’t make any complaints because they want their degrees and are in no mood to have any trouble for amount like two or three hundred rupees. But that does not mean UoP should take advantage of students helplessness.

Indian Railway play with words to harass RTI applicants

Indian railways have charged a fee of whopping RS. 1000 per copy of reservation chart Under RTI. An RTI applicant Ravindra Vabale had asked copies of reservation charts . They have also attached copy of concerned circular. But if we go and study earlier circulars it reveals how Babus play with the words to avoid or dodge RTI queries.  The circular issued in 1994 is not available, but 2007 circular clearly shows that the fee of RS. 750 was for verification purpose and not for the copy of reservation chart, and that too was for the government departments.

2010 circular also mentions the uniform fee of Rs. 750/- per PNR for verifying journey details but suddenly in 2011 words “verification of PNR” were  replaced by the words “copy of reservation chart” . and words “government departments” were replaced by words “any person” . This is clear indicates that such was done to avoid or harass RTI requisitions. Reproducing here the extract of all the three concerned circulars.

No.2006FlG-I/20/P/LTC New Delhi, Dated: l0/01/2007

Instructions were issued vide this office letter No.93/TG- I/20/P dated 04/05/1994 on the subject quoted above wherein it was advised that a uniform fee of Rs.750/- per verification should be charged by zonal railway from various Government departments who approach for verification of LTC Travel detail. A clarification has been sought by Northern Railway on this account regarding the fee to be charged from the following agencies in case they approach for verification of LTC Travel

details: -

l) Police/CBI in different types of investigation/criminal cases. 2) Courts 3) Railway Vigilance in various cases. 4) Railway refund offices for deciding refund cases. 5) Various reports of the Railways to dispose off complaint cases. The matter has been reviewed and it has been decided that: -

i. Verification fee may not be charged from Police/CB1/Courts, in connection with investigation/hearing of Civil/Criminal or any other cases. However, verification fee will be charged in case of verification of LTC claims of the staff of these organisations.

ii. No verification fee may be charged in Vigilance, Refund and Complaint cases being investigated by Railways.iii Verification fee may be charged from all other agencies except those mentioned in (i) & (ii) above.

CCMs/CCM (PMs) will, have discretionary powers to waive off the fee in specific cases like requests from different Commissions, Parliament or Legislative Secretariat etc. Necessary instructions may be issued to all concerned and receipt of this letter be acknowledged.

N0. 2006/TG-I/20/P/LTC New Delhi, dated 31.08.2010

Please refer to this ofiice letter of even number dated 04.05.1994 and l0.0l .2007 (Commercial Circular No. 06 of 2007) intevalia advising therein regarding charging of a uniform fee of Rs 750/- per PNR for LTC verification, and non-charging of this fee from certain agencies as prescribed therein. Now a query has been raised whether these charges are applicable for verifying journey details in other cases also.

2. The matter has been considered at Board’s level and it is clarified that Zonal Railways should realise a uniform fee of Rs.750/- per PNR for verifying journey details irrespective of the fact whether it is for LTC verification or otherwise.

No.2006/TG-I/20/P/LTC Pt. New Delhi, dated I3 .12.2011,

The issue has been examined in consultation with Finance Directorate of Board’s office and it has been decided that the following fee should be realized for furnishing a copy of reservation chart to any person:~

(i) For furnishing a copy of reservation chart to any person, a fee of Rs. 1,000/- per page should be charged. In this case, party will be provided a printout of the reservation chart taken out from the system Without indicating the status of passenger viz. turning up/non-turning up.

(ii) In case of furnishing of copy of working chart (having indication by TTEs/TCs relating to turning up or non-turning up and other relevant details), a fee of Rs. 750/- per PNR should be charged for all the PNRs indicated on that page.-

Narayanasamy’s definition of Substantial funding – One more threat for RTI ahead

If accepted,union minister of state for personnel public grievances and pensions V. Narayanasamy’s definition " Substantial funding means above 51 per cent’ "private sharks will grab the entire country in no time. All the Build Operate Transfer (BOT), Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, Non Government Organisations (NGO) getting crores of rupees as a fund or aid in kind Co Operative societies, will automatically come out of the preview of RTI act.

There are 33.50 lakh NGO’s and around 6.5 lakh cooperative societies working since last decades for welfare of society in India. That means there are around 40 lakh organisation working for 120 crore population, i.e. there is one such organisation per 300 people. If we assume there are only 10 members in such organisations i.e. there is one person per 30 people working for welfare of society since last many decades. Major Job of these organisations is to take government policies, schemes to common person. However what we see the ground reality is, status of the common person is same as was several decades back. Each year government spends crores and crores rupees for welfare of common person , then where did all this money go?. Interesting part of this is , most of all these are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by political entities.  

There are projects like BOT, PPP where government’s major stake is involved in form of direct or indirect funding. In addition as the government has already allowed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). We have to see the implications of definition of substantial funding keeping in the mind above mentioned factors .

I wonder how anybody can say that “I have taken your rupee but as my stakes are high, I don’t owe any responsibility towards your rupee because it is not substantial funding”.?. Definition of substantial funding can not be and should not be in terms percentage.