India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Housing society gladiators, fight on wrong battlegrounds

After amendment to cooperative housing society Act, lot of people asked me several questions. Most of the questions were related to their own society. From the questions they asked, it was clear that most of them wanted to settle score with somebody. There are always some issues in the every cooperative housing society. Many society members behave like gladiators. They treat committee members as personal servants. As well, some committee members also behave as if society is their personal kingdom. Allegations of misbehaviour, malpractices and corruption on committee members are common everywhere.

However, on the background of amendments in co-operative housing society act (CHS), as per 97th ammendment to the constitution of India. Henceforth handling CHS is going to be more difficult. As per new amendments, there is provision of penalizing committee members and also there is a provision of cessation of membership on some default. General body of the society may prescribe penalties to the member for different breaches of the byelaws of the society. In addition, there are provisions of penalty to the committee members 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 etc.

Most important fact is, as the real estate scenario is changing fast and property rates are going high. There is lot of possibility of misuse of provisions from both the sides. Committee members may use their power to harass society members, As well; society members may also threaten committee members on pity issues. This is not a forecast, such incidences are happening in the cities already.


However, it is not the case that intention behind every such incidence is to grab the property or to teach lesson to committee members. Many times the concerned people are not aware of where to peruse his/her case. Hence, some times, for issues like irregular supply of water from local authority people hold committee members responsible. That means they choose wrong battleground to fight. However, what is the solution? I do not know how much it will be effective but, I guess frequent awareness campaigns in every housing society for member's rights and duties may reduce such menace.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Charge sheets against illegal plot buyers will stop disastrous incidences like katraj tragedy

Calm, Private, Luxurious and yet open Farm plots with Sunrise / sunset point, Swimming pool, Landscape garden, Exclusive Developed demarcated plots with Boundary Fencing, forest walks along the periphery and that too on the agriculture land - mostly, on the hill top and hill slopes. Is not this an Ideal location to build dream bungalow? .But wait all this is on proposed N.A (non- agriculture) plot and in No Development Zone. Developers of such lands also claim Clear and Marketable Title in Emerging investment hub and an ideal plot to build your Dream Bungalow and that means Natural way to happiness.

There is nothing harm in dreaming to have such bungalow, as far as every thing is legal and just. However, is this all true? As far as pune is concerned, developers of such properties have cheated thousands of such buyers. The lust of having such property has made many buyers life miserable. However, who is responsible for that? Only developers and government machinery? .Sorry, I beg to differ. Not only developers and government machinery but buyers of such properties are also responsible for such illegal purchases and crime of destruction of environment and death of wadekar mother - daughter duo died in katraj mishap after heavy rainfall. An inquiry is on in this mishap and inquiry committee should hold such property buyers responsible for culpable homicide of wadekars.

प्रती ,
1)मा.श्री. विकास देशमुख
   मा.जिल्हाधिकारी .
   पुणे ,
2)मा.श्री. महेश पाठक
   आयुक्त , पुणे महानगरपालिका
   पुणे
विषय - कात्रज  दुर्घटनेतील लोकांच्या  मृत्यूस कारणीभूत असणा-यांवर गुन्हे दाखल करणे बाबत ...
महोदय,

कात्रज येथे टेकडीवरून जोरदार पावसाचे पाणी आल्याने झालेल्या दुर्घटनेत दोन जणांचा मृत्यू झाला . या दु़र्घटनेस बेकायदा टेकडीफोड करणारे, टेकडीवर बेकायदा बांधकाम करणारे , रस्त्यांच्या नावाखाली टेकड्यांवर चर खणणारे यांच्या बरोबरच माध्यमांनी आणि स्वयंसेवी संस्थांनी अशा बाबी लक्षात आणून दिल्यानंतरही त्याकडे अक्षम्य दुर्लक्ष करणारे अधिकारीही तितकेच जबाबदार आहेत . त्यामूळे या सर्वांवर दुर्दैवी दुर्घटनेतील लोकांच्या मृत्यूस कारणीभूत ठरल्याचे गुन्हे दाखल करण्यात यावेत .
त्याच प्रमाणे केवळ कात्रजच  नव्हे तर जिल्हातील सर्वच टेकड्या आणि डोंगर अशाच प्रकारे फोडले जात आहेत आणि त्याकडे प्रशासनाचे अक्षम्य दुर्लक्ष होत आहे. त्याबाबही दुर्घटना घडल्यास सर्व संबधितांवर वरील प्रमाणेच गुन्हे  दाखल करण्यात यावेत.
पुण्यात दोन वर्षांपूर्वी  बावधन येथे पावसाच्या पाण्याने हाहाकार माजवला होता. त्या दुर्घटनेत सुमारे 11 जण मृत्यूमूखी पडले होते . त्यानंतर  पालिकेने त्यासंदर्भात काही उपाययोजना करण्याचे ठरविले होते , परंतु त्या पूर्ण झाल्या नाहीतच. शिवाय त्यानंतरही शहरातील पाण्याचे अनेक नैसर्गीक स्त्रोत, ओढे नाले अडविण्यात आल्याचे किंवा नष्ट करण्यात आल्याचे दिसून येते .त्यामूळेही भविष्यात पुण्यातही अशाच दुर्घटना घडण्याची शक्यता नाकारण्यात येत नाही.
त्यामूळे पुणे शहर आणि जिल्ह्यात अशा दुर्घटना होउ नयेत यासाठी युद्धपातळीवर कार्यकम घेउन अशा दुर्घटना घडू नयेत यासाठी प्रयत्न करावेत आणि त्यातूनही अशी दुर्घटना घडल्यास त्यासाठी जबाबदार असणा--या  सर्व संबधितांवर फौजदारी गुन्हे दाखल करण्यात यावेत. हि विनंती .
 कळावे                                                          आपले
मे.जन (रिटा) एससीएन जटार                                                                 विजय कुंभार
नागरिक चेतना मंच                                                                    सुराज्य संघर्ष समिती

There is reason, why I am saying that buyers of such properties are equally responsible. Since last few years, purchasing capacity of one class mostly related to IT, increased considerably and they subsequently became the potential investors. Having international exposure, this class was well aware of rich peoples' lifestyle worldwide. They also wanted to acquire such life style in India. Some clever cheaters specifically caught these peoples psych and started picturing their dream world. Immediately they got success, but there was more demand than supply. Buyers were, purchasing there dreams without verifying the truth. Such well educated (?) buyers who spent lakhs of rupees on such sham deals did not bother to take legal advice before buying plots.

 It was not the case that these buyers were not aware of the illegalities they were doing. They knew that they could not purchase agriculture land, there is ban on subdivision of land, and they cannot do anything in no development zone. There cannot be a thing like proposed N.A land. Land is either agriculture or non-agriculture. Buying or selling agriculture land and claiming some time in future it will become N.A is like marrying minor child claiming that it will become major some time in future.

 So many people wrote to authorities about such land deals and illegalities. Newspapers covered the stories. However, not the developers of such lands, government machinery, or the buyers took cognizance of it. They were dot sure about India mein sabkuch chalta hai.It proves that buyers were well aware of the fact what they were doing. Had they not purchased such plots, destruction of environment, hills would have stopped and lives of wadekars would not have lost.

It is evident from the fact that still after katraj mishap nothing has changed. Developers are shamelessly advertising their sham schemes, government machinery is ignoring it, and so-called innocent buyers are purchasing plots in such schemes. Unless people buying stolen property are penalised this business will not stop. Hence, not only in katraj mishap, but in all the special townships, N.A plot schemes where there are illegal things, charge sheets should be filled against all the concerned including buyers.

Related stories


Monday, July 8, 2013

Search of SIBS is on for the post of Maharashtra State Information Commissioners

In Maharashtra search is on of SIBS (Senior Indian Bureaucrats) for the post of State Information Commissioners (SIC). In Maharashtra, it is now high time for appointments of information commissioners. On 18th July, state information commissioner Bhaskar Patil who was initially appointed on Amravati bench of state information commission and then transferred (?) to Nagpur bench will retire. So there is confusion about which post will be vacant Nagpur or Aurangabad? Already there are three posts vacant and on 18th total four posts will become vacant.

As it is always said that information commissions have become parking lot of retired bureaucrats.It will be interesting to see whether government of Maharashtra fills all the vacant posts at time or waits for some time for some bureaucrats to become senior citizens to fill some posts. Few senior bureaucrats are about to retire in next few months. Some of them have already applied for post of SIC.

Earlier due to Supreme Courts judgement in most controversial Namit Sharma case, there was confusion about appointment of information commissioners. However, when after review petition, Supreme Court gave some relief and stay was granted on some points. but following points remained as it is. Hence, it is mandatory for every government to follow those. These points are

1) The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as afore-recorded.

2) The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section 12(3), for final recommendation to the President of India. Needless to repeat that the High Powered Committee at the Centre and The State levels are expected to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending the names for appointment to the competent authority.

3) The selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy

Government of Maharashtra has followed none of them .No prior advertisement has been given and hence question of preparing panel does not arise at all. What government of Maharashtra has done is that, it has only prepared panel from the application received directly without advertisement. Many of these application have recommendations of MP', MLA's and Political parties. Let us see whoes recomandation has more weightage? .

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Finally Pune Municipal Corporation uploads computerized data of its properties on Website

Finally Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) has uploaded computerised data of its properties on website. We must congratulate PMC officers for that. It took almost 10 years to collect all the data. I had given first notice regarding this to PMC on 18 December 2003. However, task was difficult because all the interested 'parties' were against it and data was not maintained properly. I had to serve several notices regarding this to PMC. As all the parties had hand in gloves. PMC officials were also under pressure. Several times, they announced that data will be made public soon, but could not do so.Now though PMC has published the Data, it may not be perfect or accurate. So now, citizens have to communicate to PMC if there is any inaccuracy.

It all started with the a resolution passed by the General Body and Standing Committee of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), bestowing the right of a sports complex to the then Chairman of the Standing Committee,  for 30 years, without a calling for proper tenders, in the year 2001. This amounted to day light robbery of public property.

Angered by this brazen flouting of the law, I filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court, praying for the Court's intervention in the matter. While arguing in its favour, the PMC had stated that leasing out properties in this manner was "their consistent practice." The Honourable High Court came down heavily on the civic body and ordered it to take back the sports complex land with immediate effect. In addition, the Justices passed an order, directing the civic body to frame a proper Land Allocation Policy, to prevent the misuse or encroachment of public land in the future.

However, to get the civic body to act on the directions of the Honourable Court I had to fight tediously for six long years. The present Land Allotment Policy was framed in the year 2008, and since then the PMC has identified hundreds of such properties. Work is underway to take over those properties.

Another important facet of this story is that when I had asked under the Right to Information about the properties of the civic body leased out with out tender, it was revealed that a proper database was not maintained by the PMC. It was only after repeated notices that the PMC has started maintaining the same.

This brazen encroachment of public land goes on rampantly through out the nation and it is my earnest desire that the people in various parts of the country start the process of rectifying the same, using the Right to Information.

Pune Suseong-gu MoU, Open Letter to Mayor and Commissioner

To,
1) Hon'ble Mrs. Vaishali Bankar,
Mayor, Pune Municipal Corporation
Pune.

2) Hon'ble Mr. Mahesh Pathak, IAS,
Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation
Pune

 Dear Madam /Sir,

Recently some of the elected members of the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and an officer from PMC visited the City of Suseong -gu and signed a Memorandum of Understanding for friendly exchange between two cities. As per this MoU both cities shall establish close friendly relationship to develop cooperation based on mutual respect and benefit.

It is a good thing that Pune city is trying to established friendly relations with a foreign city so long as it is within the four boundaries of the law of the land. According to the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (BPMC) Act, approval from the General Body of the Corporation is mandatory for all acts done on behalf of PMC. It is inconceivable that the Mayor goes against the provisions of the BPMC Act. Hence, I shall be obliged if you can make these approvals public.



As per established norms, the responsibility for establishing friendly relations with foreign countries vests with the Central Government. Or at least permission of such departments is essential before developing friendly relations with foreign cities. I request you to make such permissions public.

According to reference No. II/21022/58(97)/2011-FCRA-I, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing), “No member of a Legislature or office-bearer of a political party or Judge or Government servant or employee of any corporation or any other body owned or controlled by the Government shall, while visiting any country or territory outside India, accept, except with the prior permission of the Central Government, any foreign hospitality.” Please also let the public have the prior permission taken from the Central Government for this tour to Korea.

As per MoU both cities shall improve understanding of residents of the region and shall support exchange activities in education, culture, medicine, economy, urban development and areas of mutual concern. Developing relations for activities in education, culture, medicine, economy, urban development with foreign countries is the responsibility of ministries or departments concerned of the Central Government and instructions exist in this regard. Has PMC appropriated these responsibilities to itself from the ministries or departments concerned? I request you to make copies of these appropriations available to the public.

As per the MoU, both cities shall promote mutual exchange based on this MOU and shall do their best to promote exchanges in the private sector. This MoU was signed on 12th June 2013 and Committee members were in Suseong - gu until 17 June. Hence, there must have been discussions about mutual exchanges with the private sector also. I request you to make the minutes of such discussions public.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Maha info commissioner's transfers, Guardians of transparency, suppressed the facts

Information commissioners are supposed to be guardians of transparency. However, when it comes to personal benefit, it is revealed that they can suppress the facts. When Vilas Patil, then state information commissioner (SIC) of Nagpur had requested for his transfer to Nasik, High-powered committee (HPC) had recommended appointment of Bhaskar Patil for SIC at Nagpur on 15/1/2008. However, when after AG's report it was confirmed that  transfer was not possible. Vilas Patil withdrew his request and HPC sent a revised recommendation on 21/11/2008  to Governor for Bhaskar Patils appointment as SIC Amravati .It is hard to believe that information commissioners who were transferred last year were not aware of the facts and Advocate General's (AG )  report in this case. However, conveniently, this fact was suppressed and request of transfers was made to then newly appointed Chief information commissioner. Accordingly, he obliged them.

The State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) Ratnakar Gaikwad, while transferring three SIC's last year had defied the legal opinion of AG,  that 'A State Information Commissioner can not be transferred unless he resigns from his present posting.' This was revealed after an official copy of correspondence mentioning AG's report in a similar case few years back was obtained.

 AG's report about the transfer clearly states that even if the HPC ( comprising Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister & Leader of Opposition in Vidhansabha) decides to recommend to the Governor transfer on new posting for a SIC, his resignation from his present posting is essential. Even when this report was in the records of general administration department and State Information Commission Gaikwad ordered transfers of SIC, M.H.Shah from Nasik to Pune, Bhaskar Patil from Amravati to Nagpur and P.W.Patil from Nagpur to Nasik in June 2012 within a week after taking over as SCIC. Since there is no power vested in SCIC for such transfers in RTI Act 2005, I  had then written to the Governor to revoke these controversial transfers.

The legal opinion in this report has confirmed my contention that transfers of SIC's by Gaikwad were not as per the law. As per the report in 2007-08 the SIC Nagpur Vilas Patil had requested to the high power committee for his transfers to Nasik. The committee under the chairmanship of Chief Minister accepted his request and sent recommendation of his transfer to the Governor. However, the governor's office observed that there was no provision of SIC's transfers in RTI Act, 2005 and ordered for the opinion of law & judiciary department . In his report submitted to the Government on 14th February 2008 the AG states, 'Minutes of the high power committeeclearly indicate a specific recommendation of commissioner for a specificregion. Committee can change the decision provided he (Vilas Patil) resigns from his present post. His appointment would be a fresh appointment requiring his resignation from his post at Nagpur. Neither an amendment nor a partial notification of the extant notification would serve the purpose.' Following this complications Patil withdrew his request for transfer.

 As per the minutes of the high power committee each of these three SIC's had been recommended for a specific region by the committee and the appointment letters signed by the Chief Secretary also indicate their postings. It is clear that even the high power committee cannot transfer an SIC then how can CIC order and execute such transfers? SCIC has clearly defied all authorities and procedures.

In Maharashtra , head office of SIC is at Mumbai and as per section 15(7) of RTI act commission after approval of state has established its offices at Pune, Kankan , Brihanmumbai , Amravati, Nasik, Nagpur and Aurangabad .And Government of Maharashtra by various orders under the name and order of Governor has created posts of officials' including State Information commissioner for each office specifically. In addition, Governor has appointed state information commissions for Amravati, Nagpur, and Nasik by separate orders .These appointments are for those specific offices only. My contention was, when Governor appoints SIC on recommendation of HPC for specific post. Then nobody can relieve him from that post unless his term ends, he attains age of 65 years, resigns, or removed from the post of SIC under any of the provision of RTI act.

Now that as all the three information commissioners have vacated posts they were duly appointed on and joined other offices. As per AG's report, these should be considered new appointments. However, for this post not the HPC has recommended their names or Governor has not approved it. Then what is the status of these information commissioners and what is the validity of decisions they have given?


Talking to media on this subject state chief information commissioner has said "Please ask these activists who is otherwise empowered?".(for transfers of SIC's) However, there is no need to ask ctivist or anyody. The Advocate General's report is there in state information commissions' office .And Governor, HPC as well as state information commission have already taken stand according to that opinion. Now if this report has become irrelevant, please let the people of Maharashtra know, how, when and why it became irrelevant? And let SCIC state who is the authority in legal matters SCIC or Advocate General?

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Pune Municipal corporation members include minor kins in foreign jaunt as expert NGO members to sign MOU on behalf of the city.

Recently a team of Pune Municipal corporation (PMC) members visited city of suseong-gu in South Korea. Among members of this team there were elected members of PMC, one PMC officer and rest were the relatives of elected members. They claim that mayor of city of suseong-gu had invited them along with the members of Non-Government organisation (NGO) to sign memorandum of understanding (MoU) for friendly exchanges between the two cities.

Interestingly they also took their kins along with them touting as members of NGO, some of these so-called NGO members are not even legally adult, they are minor. Even then, they were taken to abroad as if they were the only knowledgeable and expert members in the affairs of civic issues of the city.

Now they claim that they bore all the expenses of the tour. Even if we believe that, they bore their own expenses, which is not true, why did they go on behalf of city of pune? If they went on tour on their own expenses ?, then the tour was private one and nobody will object to it. However, when you go and sign MOU on behalf of the city, it no longer remains the private tour irrespective of the question of expense. Moreover in this case expenses of official member of this team are borne by PMC itself, standing committee had passed the the resolution in that respect.

Now political parties say that people should ask suseong-gu administration about how and why they invited kins of the elected members as the members of NGO's .This is interesting argument ,and  we must congratulate administration of suseong-gu because by  intuition only they came to know the name, age and passport no's of kins of elected members. However they could not identify the names of NGO's these kins are related to.

Interestingly until today, there is no clue what actually this MOU was about? who allowed these people to sign on behalf of the city ?, what study was done before signing such MOU? Moreover, what pune is going to get from this MOU?

There are certain rules and regulation in place for receiving foreign hospitalities such as boarding, lodging, transport. As per office memorandum No. II/21022/58(97)/2011-FCRA-I , No member of a Legislature or office-bearer of a political party or Judge or Government servant or employee of any corporation or any other body owned or controlled by the Government shall, while visiting any country or territory outside India, not accept, except with the prior permission of the Central Government, any foreign hospitality:

In addition, foreign Hospitality means, any offer, not being a purely casual one, made in cash or kind by a foreign source for providing a person with the costs of travel to any foreign country or territory or with free boarding, lodging, transport, or medical treatment.

In addition, as per rule seven of this Office Memorandum (1) any person belonging to any of the categories specified in Section 6 who wishes to avail of foreign hospitality shall apply to the Central Government in Form FC-2 for prior permission to accept such foreign hospitality.
(2) Every application for acceptance of foreign hospitality shall be accompanied by an invitation letter from the host or the host country, as the case may be, and administrative clearance of the Ministry or Department concern in case of visits sponsored by a Ministry or Department of the Government.
(3) The application for grant of permission to accept foreign hospitality must reach the appropriate authority ordinarily two weeks before the proposed date of onward journey.


However, when administration and elected representative with hands gloves do something wrong who else is going to take action on them? Now citizen of pune should raise their voice and ask their representatives, what is going on? 

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

13000 employees of revenue department of Maharashtra looted 100 crores meant for pension for old age people.

As per reports in a leading daily of Maharashtra "loksatta" , criminal action against approximately 13,732 employees of revenue department has been recommended by two enquiry committees for alleged fraud in various  pension schemes for old aged to the tune of more than hundred crores.The government is stunned by seeing number of employees indicted in this case. If decided to take action, entire revenue department would be closed hence action in this case is delayed since last ten years.

There are various pension schemes in Maharashtra, named sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and national pension schemes for old age people. It was alleged that hand in gloves with political party workers several government employees and officers had siphoned up pensions meant for the needy people. They had shown about 1,66,352 illegal beneficiaries' out of which number of dead beneficiaries' were - 27141, missing -34,759, bogus - 4244, other illegal beneficiaries - 1,00,268,  Total - 1,66,352.

After complaint in irregularities in sanjay gandhi NIRADHAR grant scheme Aurangabad bench of Mumbai High Court had ordered inquiry in to these schemes .The inquiry was conducted on two levels at divisional commissioner level and deputy director of health level.Ofiicers from talathi, gramsevak, circle and branch level officers, medical officers , nayab tahasildar , tahasildar  as well as members of political parties heading concerned committees were held  guilty in this case and criminal action was recommended against all.


In 2003 this matter was considered by then cabinet ministry ,  and it was also decided that action would be initiated,  but looking at the scale of employees involved, the fear was expressed that if prosecuted  entire ministry would come to standstill and hence the report was concealed .

Why Governments are reluctant to follow Supreme Court Orders ?

In Namit Sharma judgement, Supreme Court of India had directed all governments that the selection process of information commissions should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy. As far as Maharashtra is concerned, it does not seem to obey supreme courts order. In Maharashtra, there are total eight posts of information commissioners including chief information commissioner, of which four are vacant and fifth post is going to be vacant on 17 July, i.e. after 17 July, there will be five posts vacant. Forget about starting process of filling post before vacancy, government of Maharashtra has not bothered to fill even vacant posts.

That is how the government of Maharashtra honors Supreme Court orders. The history is matters under which it was possible to put hurdles before the RTI applicants and appellants Government of Maharashtra had acted promptly But stealthily. ( remember amendments to The Maharashtra RTI rules)  .But when it comes to fill the vacancies or do something for the benefit of RTI or in the public interest it doesn't even bother to disobey supreme court.

Recently government of Maharashtra stealthily tried to frame appeal procedure rules for state information commission. When I learnt about this, I wrote about it on this blog. After that, lot of RTI activists and journalists called me about authenticity of these draft rules and asked why government is trying to do this in such a hurry? Moreover, why they have not made it public before they pass it ?. The answer of this also lies in Namit Sharma judgement that was delivered by division bench of supreme me court of India on 13 September 2013  and subsequently challenged by some renowned RTI activists. In addition, we have experienced in the past that why government doesn't make such things public? The answer is simple, because if they make it public then there will be burden to make those people friendly.

In this judgement, SC had directed that the Central Government and/or the competent authority shall frame all practice and procedure related rules to make working of the Information Commissions effective and in consonance with the basic rule of law. Such rules should be framed with particular reference to Section 27 and 28 of the Act within a period of six months from today (i.e. from 13 September 2013 ).That may be the reason that government of Maharashtra  tried to frame those infamous appeal procedure rules in hurry and stealthily.

The next two orders i.e. (1) The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’. and (2) The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be, Were stayed by the supreme court in review petition . However, there was no stay for any other orders even then most of the governments have not followed that.


Supreme Court had also directed that appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis as before recorded. Only DoPT has has published advertisement for appointment of information commissions. No other government seems to be following this order.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Only 160 more years required for compliance of section 4 of RTI act?

A, B and C can do a particular piece of work in 2, 3 and 6 hours time respectively. If they do the same work together, in how much time they will finish it? Many of us must have faced such type of work, time, and speed problems in school days. Many of us may make mistake while answering such problems. We can understand if any person makes such mistake, but what if entire country makes a mistake?

Yes, as far as Right to Information is concerned, entire country has made such mistake. On 15 June 2005 parliament of India passed RTI act. On 15th June 2013, it completed eight years; to be precise it completed 2922 days. After 15th june parliament of India .i.e. entire country gave  120 days time  to all the public authorities , to disseminate  as much information suo motu , to the public at regular intervals , through various means of communications, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain information. How this 120 days period for compliance was calculated? , Who was so sure about capabilities of public authorities in India? .No body knows the answers to these questions. However, ground reality is, there is very little, or no compliance at all of section 4 of RTI acts in India.

Exact figure of compliance of section 4 is not available, but for sure, it is not more than 2% to 5% in entire India. Now if we consider formula of time, work, speed, and if in 2922 days only 5% compliance is there, then how much time will they require for 100% compliance. Answer is simple 58, 440 days, i.e. only 160 years! As far as country is considered 160 years is not a big span, but if citizens of the country are considered this is very big span. As per this speed, our next few generations will not see compliance of section 4.

Now let us be some generous, show some faith on capabilities of our public authorities, and see what happens. if we consider 10% compliance of section 4 has been done then for full compliance  80 years will be required , if  we assume 20% compliance has been done then 40 years and if 40% compliance is done then next 20 years will be required for full compliance.

It is hard to believe that 40% compliance has been done or even it is impossible that somebody will claim so. It is pleasant scenario that in next 20 years 100 % compliance of section 4 will be done isn't it? But friends we are talking about compliance up to 15 June 2005 only , what about next years compliance? .For that we have to calculate vice versa . forget it , instead it is better to believe that in next 20% years 100 % compliance will be done.Thats why it is not even considered here that only 2% of compliance has been done till today. Positive thinking is always good. However, question remains the same, how did we made a mistake about capacity of our public authorities on such a huge scale?.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Why political parties did change their stand on RTI and Transparency?

After central information commissions (CIC) decision on Right to Information (RTI), regarding applicability of it to political parties all the parties' unanimously opposed the decision.Interestingle parties' earlier singing song of transparency and accountability suddenly changed their tune. Many of them were scared of disclosure of names of donors. Actually though direct or indirect funding was important factor in bringing political parties under ambit of RTI. To me major role is played in this decision by preamble of constitution of India and preamble of RTI.

Para 86 of this decision says "We may also add that the preamble to the Constitution of India aims at securing to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; and, EQUALITY of status and of opportunity. Coincidentally, the preamble of RTI Act also aims to promote these principles in the form of transparency and accountability in the working of the every public authority. It also aims to create an ‘informed citizenry’, to contain corruption, and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Political Parties are important political institutions and can play a critical role in heralding transparency in public life. Political Parties continuously perform public functions which define parameters of governance and socio-economic development in the country." moreover, it was also said that the Political Parties are the building blocks of a constitutional democracy.

It seems that political parties were confused while dealing with this case. I guess there was very much importance to argument on confidentiality, transparency, and public interest in this case .It was difficult for political parties to openly defend confidentiality, and with this obligation, they were helpless and unable to oppose transparency and public interest. In addition, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Communist Party of India (CPI) had almost replied to application under section 6 of RTI.

Chandan Bose, PRO, Nationalist Congress Party, in his letter dated 27th November 2010, had informed the complainant “It is very important to mention here that NCP is a non-government organization. Hence, we do not have much more resources nor surplus staff to expedite unusual work, However, I would like to inform you that ours is a National Party duly recognized by Election Commission of India and that from the day of inception of our party, we have been regularly filing our returns to the Income Tax authorities and also to the Election Commission of India along with whatever voluntary contributions received. It is pertinent to mention here that our all obligation towards authorities are up to date. If you feel like, you may collect all the information you desired, from the above said authorities." In other words NCP had agreed that even though it is non - governed organisation it is covered under section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of RTI.

CPI had earlier replied and provided names of top 10 donors to applicant and On the other hand,  A.B. Bardhan, General Secretary, CPI, in letter dated 21.3.2011addressed to applicant  Anil Bairwal has stated that CPI is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The relevant portion of his letter is extracted below :- “(a) Yes, we are Public Authority under section 2(h)(d)(ii) “non-government organizations” substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government. In addition (b), we have our internal Appellate Authority “Central Control Commission.”

Later on all the parties including NCP and CPI changed their stand in CIC. Why this happened?. why political parties are scared of disclosing their funding? As per Transparency International, Money may come into conflict with the democratic principles of civic equality and fair competition in elections and can undermine political representation.
For example

1) When the availability of resources becomes a decisive factor in winning elections instead of candidate proposals.
2)When money contributed to electoral campaigns safeguards private interests and inhibits political parties and candidates representing collective interests to communicate their ideas.
3) When a party in office uses the system and the resources of the State for the benefit of the electoral campaigns of its candidates.
4) When companies contribute to electoral campaigns in exchange for future favours from elected representatives.
5)When illegal groups, such as organized crime, drug-trafficking or other armed groups, support candidates who in performing their duties will represent illegal interests.
6) When resources used to fund electoral campaigns are raised individually by candidates and not by their parties, thereby creating the risk of personal commitment on the part of the candidate to the donor.
7) When candidates use financial resources for inappropriate purposes, such as vote purchasing or other forms of unfair competition.
8) When elected representatives have, in general, a greater commitment to donors than to the public.
9) When representatives use their post and attendant government resources to gain re-election.
10) When civic equality, reflected in the principle of each individual having one vote, is undermined by the unwarranted ability of some to contribute money to politics.

These conflicts affect the legitimacy of elected representatives as well as their ability to develop rules aimed to benefit the public. The negative impact of such on the quality of life of the people multiplies and the democratic system as a whole stands to lose credibility.

Shining a light on political financing is the best way to clean house. When parties and candidates disclose information about funds used to finance their activities, both during electoral campaigns and generally, scrutiny of illegal funds and influence peddling in politics is facilitated.

All politicians as well as the parties and groups that support them are either legally or morally required to report to the public. The accuracy and usefulness of reports will increase to the extent that they are fully disclosed to the public and to the media. Reports should be clear, complete, presented on time and reliable.


However, this is not happening in India only. Since last few years, many countries worldwide are trying bring legislation on political funding and expenditure. Many developed countries already have such legislations and control over funding and expenses of political parties and they make them public.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Will real estate bill really stop unfair practices in housing projects ?

         Yesterday cabinet of India approved real estate(regulation and development) bill. This bill aims to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and planned development in the real estate sector, to ensure sale of immovable properties in an efficient and transparent manner, and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector.

Earlier also central and state governments have passed so many legislations and policies to regulate this sector. Primary object of all these legislations and policies was to help consumer from being cheated, to provide affordable housing, to give concessions to this sector for benefit of poor. However, none of these legislations or policies could provide shelter for poor. All the benefits or concessions given by governments never reached to its real beneficiary. All the incentives, benefits, facilities, and concession meant for poor were robbed by mafias in this sector. Because no government attempted to check whether these benefits reach to real beneficiaries or not. That was deliberate and hand in glove with real estate mafias.

There were and are several legislations or policies that were meant for affordable housing. e.g. housing for economically weaker section (EWS) , Urban Land ceiling ( ULC) , so many awas yojanas , special Township act , Slum rehabilitation Act (SRA), Affordable housing policy , National Urban Housing & Habitat Policy (NUHHP), Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) , Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme (IHSDP), various state housing boards etc. etc.

None of the above could provide adequate affordable housing or housing for poor. There were several benefits and concessions given in all the above schemes and policies but they never reached to real beneficiaries' .Only beneficiary of such benefits and concessions were developers. Anarchy is Urban Land Ceiling Act was introduced to acquire land for affordable housing and it was repealed for the same reason.

As far as Maharashtra is concerned, the first ever DRAFT STATE HOUSING POLICY was published in 2006. The main objective of this policy  to address the issue of providing affordable housing for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), Low Income Group (LIG), and Middle Income Group (MIG) .Under this policy and In order to encourage private investment in housing sector and to facilitate housing at affordable prices. Incentives for this scheme include automatic Non-agriculture permission, floating FSI in the township, concession in stamp duty, and concession in development charges and so on. However, what fate this scheme has mate? . Who got benefits of all those incentives ?

Can a person from EWS, LIG, and MIG dare or afford to purchase house in such schemes?. Forget about purchasing house in these schemes.Some townships are encouraging investors to buy flats in these schemes. Don't they know why they have received all the incentives? If you ask them why they are encouraging investors instead of real buyers they will shamelessly say that, government has put in any such condition. That is true there is no such condition or any authority to check whether such incentives reach to its real beneficiaries or not.

Not only this but many developers of such schemes even don't disclose correct fact of the schemes ,don't complete projects in time, don't give promised amenities .And there was not any authority to attend such complaints or to take sou motto action on such developers. Now government has come forward with one such authority called Real Estate Regulatory Authority. (RERA)

Hence forth every project above has to be registered with RERA and for that he/she has to declare among other things legal title to the land, land is free from all encumbrances and has to give affirmation that the project or the phase of the project shall be completed as the case may be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the registration.

This Authority may, on receipt of a complaint in this behalf or suo motto or on the recommendation of the Competent Authority, revoke the registration granted if
 (a) The promoter makes willful default in doing anything required of him by or under this Act or the rules or the regulations made there under;
(b) The promoter violates any of the terms or conditions of the agreement entered into with the Competent Authority: Provided that the Authority shall revoke the registration under this clause only on a recommendation received from the Competent Authority in this behalf;
(c) The promoter is involved in any kind of unfair practice or irregularities.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, the term “unfair practice means” a practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale or development of any immovable property adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-
(A) The practice of making any statement, whether orally or writing or by visible representation which,-
(i) Falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard or grade;
(ii) Represents that the promoter has approval or affiliation, which such promoter does not have;
(iii) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the
services;

(B) permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any newspaper or otherwise of services that are not intended to be offered.

In this act, there is also provision of penalty If any promoter willfully fails to comply with or contravenes the provisions in act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or a penalty which may extend to ten per cent of the estimated cost of the real estate project, or with both.

Let us hope this act will really regulate real estate sector and protect rights of consumers also .

Friday, May 31, 2013

Last nail in the coffin of RTI in Maharashtra.


Last time they stealthily amended the RTI rules , Now they are trying to stealthily  frame appeal procedure rules. In last post, we read the proposed appeal procedure rules. There are several objectionable things in these rules. But most dangerous part is annexure "A" in which the appeal is to be submitted demands , Declaration that the case relating to Information sought for, has not been filed previously/pending with any court/any Authority. If rules come in to existence with this clause that will be the last nail in the coffin of RTI in Maharashtra. With this clause, nobody will be eligible to file RTI application in Maharashtra.

Most of the people use RTI to obtain information, documents related to their work or status of their work. That means People demand information related to their case pending with some authority.If this clause is to be applied then no body will be eligible to obtain information from any public authority. RTI act does not prevent anybody from obtaining information even if the case is pending before any court. Then why Maharashtra government is trying to introduce such type of clause?

These rules also say that while filling second appeal one copy of the appeal or Petition shall also be directly sent to the concerned Public Information (PIO) first appellate authority (FAA) and third party by the appellant.

Why this burden of sending copy of second appeal is being placed on appellants?. As far as public authorities (PA) in Maharashtra are concerned 95% public Information officers (PIO) and appellate authorities do not even mention their or appellate authorities name or address on orders. In addition, how would appellant know about name and address of third party? Third party is actually involved or not? Even if appellant knows the names and addresses of all of these. Why will they accept or receive copy of appeal when they know the consequences of second appeal?

If PIO, FAA, and third party do not accept the copy of appeal, what remedy the appellant has. He will have to file complaint under section 18 of RTI act. That procedure is also very difficult and even if such complaint is filed there very remote possibility that decision of it will be in favour of appellant. Even if information commissioner (IC) commissioner give decision if favour of appellant it will be to accept the appeals only, nothing else. That will be  a very time consuming process.

These rules also state that notice of hearing to the appellant, state public information officer, first appellate authority or the third party in any should be served in any of the following modes, namely
i. service by the party it self
ii . by hand delivery ( dasti) through process delivery
iii. head of the office or department
iv. by displaying  program of the hearing on notice board
v. by displaying the programme of hearing on website;
vi. By registered post with acknowledgement due

Taking into consideration lethargy of most of the commissions clause ( iv ) is likely to be misused. The notice of hearing must be duly served. All the parties must actually receive it.Suppose Information commissions choose only to  display program of the hearing on notice board. Then how would parties know about the hearing ? do these rules expect every party to visit commission's office regularly?.

RTI act does not demand any information from applicant except persons name and contact address. however, these rules want appellant to furnish information related to  name of father / husband , appellants service /business and full address that too on oath . On the ground, that the RTI applicants are being threatened this information is unwarranted.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Proposed appeal procedure rules A New threat for RTI in Maharashtra.

           Seven years after the introduction of  RTI act the government of Maharashtra is planning to bring appeal procedure rules . These will be called  The Maharashtra State Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2012. Some provisions that may be introduced in these rules are big threat for Right To information in Maharashtra.High lighted point are big threat to RTI .In next blog I will write about how these points are harmfull for RTI.

Maharashtra State Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2012.

l. Short title. - These rules may be called the Maharashtra State Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2012.

2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “Act” means the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005);
(b_) “Commission” means the Maharashtra State information
Commission;
(c) “section” means section of the Act;
(d) words and expressions used in these rules but not defined, shall
have the same meanings respectively, assigned to them, in the Act.

3. Memorandum of appeal.  (1) any person aggrieved by an order Of the appellate authority under subsection (1) of section 19 may, within Ninety days from the time on which the received decision have helm made by first appellate authority or was actually received. Prefer a second appeal to the State information commission on plain paper in the format given in ANNEXURE "A" appended with these rules. Which shall be accompanied by An appeal fee of rupees twenty by way of court fee stamp. The memorandum Of appeal shall be signed by the appellant the contents as mentioned in ANNEXURE "A" shall be typed or legibly handwritten in double spacing. Appeal shall be filed either by post or in person. One copy of the appeal or Petition shall also be directly sent to the concerned Public Information first appellate authority and third party by the appellant.
(2) If the memorandum of appeal is received by post, the appellant maybe informed accordingly to furnish the additional particulars or documents, if necessary.
4. Accompaniments Io memorandum of appeal. - Every memorandum of appeal made to the Commission shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:-
(I) copy of the application made to the State Public Information Officer;
(ii) self-attested copies of the order, letter, documents, or correspondence received from the State Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority;
(iii) copy of the first appeal;
(iv) copy of order if any, given by the first appellate authority against which the appeal is being preferred;
(v) date-wise list (Index) of the documents referred to in the appeal;
(vi) affidavit in the format given in Annexure “B” affixed with two rupees court fee stamp;
(vii) any other document, as deemed fit by the appellant.

5. Scrutiny of memorandum of appeal :- The officer authorized by the Commission shall examine the memorandum of appeal, or complaint as per the section (l) of section 18 of the Act and scrutinize the accompaniments appended  to the memorandum  of appeal or complaint and shall inform accordingly  to the appellant  about the shortcomings, if any.

6. Service of the notice by commission  (I) Notice to fix the hearing of the appeal is to be issued (as  far as possible at least fifteen days, before the date of hearing  fixed by the commission and be served to the appellant, state public information officer , first appellate authority or the third party in any . in any of the following modes , namely
i. service by the party it self
ii . by hand delivery ( dasti) through process delivery
iii. head of the office or department
iv. by displaying  program of the hearing on notice board
v. by displaying the programme of hearing on website;
vi. by registered post with acknowledgement due

7. Documents to be filed by respondents. - The concerned respondents shall file the following documents for perusal of the Commission;
(I) copy of the application made by the applicant for seeking! ‘
information from the State Public Information Officer; I
(ii) copies of the correspondence made with the applicant from the date of receipt of the application till the date of disposal of the application, with copies of postal proof or outward register or any  other proof;
(iii) copy of the first appeal; /
(iv) say of the Assistant Public Information Officer (if applicable)/or
Public Information officer and first appellate authority about the
grounds of the appeal;
(v) copy of the order of the decision passed by the first appellate authority;
(v) list of the documents attached serially and date-wise:
(vii) any other document as deemed fit by the respondents.

8. Personal presence of appeIIant. (I) The appellant or complainant, as the case may be, may at his discretion, be present in person or through his duly authorized representative in an exceptional case with the approval of the State Information Commission at the time of hearing of the appeal or complainant by the Commission or he may opt not to be present. If for any unavoidable circumstances it is not possible for him to remain present on the the date of hearing the hearing of the appeal or complaint, he Should inform the reasons thereof to thecommission, well in advance of the date of hearing
(2) Where the commission is satisfied that the circumstances  exists to which the appellant or complainant, as the case may be. is unable to attend  the hearing of the Commission. then. the commission may give the appellant or complainant as the case may be another opportunity of being heard before a final decision is taken or take any other, appropriate action as it may deem fit deem fit.
(3) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person with the prior approval of the Commission, in the process of the appeal while presenting his points.

9. Procedure for hearing of appeal.- (1) In deciding the appeal or complaint, the Commission may,-
(i) hear orally or take written evidence on oath or on affidavit from the concerned or interested persons; '
(ii) peruse or inspect the documents, public records, or copies thereof;
(iii) inquire through an authorized officer further details or facts;
(iv) hear the State Public information Officer or the State Assistant Public information Officer. It shall not be necessary for the first appellate authority to be heard in person, unless such authority desires a personal hearing. A written statement shall be filed by
the first appellate authority;
(v) call upon the first appellate authority to file all proceedings regarding the first appeal for perusal of the Commission;
(vi) hear the third party, if, involved in the matter;
(vii) receive evidence on affidavits from the State Public Information Officer, the State Assistant Public information  or such senior officer against whom the complaint or appeal lies and also receive evidence on affidavit from the third party. if any.

10. Calendar of cases.- (1) The Commission shall. as far its possible take up the appeals or complaints chronologically and draw up the calendar for hearings and decide the case according to the calendar.
(2) Taking into consideration the pending appeals and complaints the Commission. the Commission may  consider special appeal disposal programme of the pending appeals and complaints.

11. Order of the Commission - (1) the order of the commission shall be
pronounce in open proceedings and and be in writing. the  copies of such orders
shall be duly authenticated by the registrar or any other officer authorised by the commission for this purpose
(2) Copies of the orders shall be delivered to all the parties to the
proceeding, by register post acknowledgement due or in person if the parties
choose to do so.


ANNEXURE “A”
(see rule 3)
Affix here Court Fee Stamp of Rs. 20/-.
Second Appeal under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
From 1 ........................................... ..
(Appellant’s name and address,
With phone Number/Mobile Number, if any
To : ............................................... ..
(Name / designation / address of the appellate authority)
(l) Full name of the Appellant '
(2) Address of the Appellant
(3) Particulars of the State Public
Information Officer/Assistant Public
Information Officer
(4) Particulars of the first appellate authority
(5) Date of the receipt of the order Appealed against, including number, if Any
(6) Last date of filling appeal
(7) The grounds for appeal with reasoning :
(8) Particulars of the information
(I) Nature and subject matter of the Information required.
(ii) Name of the Office or Department to which the Information relates.
(9) Prayer or relief sought
(10) Verification by the Appellant or Complainant
(11) Declaration that the case relating to Information sought for, has not been filed previously/pending with any court/any Authority.
(l2) Any other information, which is necessary to decide appeal


ANNEXURE  'B'
(see rule 4)
Affidavit to be submitted to State Information Commission with application of Appeal under Section 19(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005. (affix Rs 5 court fee stamp).

I; Shri. / Smt. ----------------------------------------------- --(full
name of applicant) son / daughter ./ wife of Shri ---------------------- ~-
--------------------- --(name of father / husband) age- yrs., service /
business --------------------------------------------- -- residing at ------- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- (full
address) hereby affirm that the information given / facts noted in
the Second Appeal is / are true & correct. No fact is hidden, neither
any information is false. The Second Appeal is based on the
original application (under rule 6 of the Right to Information Act,
2005) dated ---------- -- & no order is passed earlier on it by any
Maharashtra State Information Commissioner. I have submitted the
Second Appeal before this bench only & no other appeal was / has
been submitted before any other State Information Commission.
Signature 1
(Applicant’s full name) 

Date and Place