For BCAJ March, 2008
Words:2833
r2i
Right to Information
Narayan Varma
Chartered Accountant
CICs decisions
· Jinnah House on Malabar Hill
In past we have reported on this subject. Now there is an interesting Order passed by three member bench of Central Information Commission on this subject. Along with the issue on the subject matter of appeal, certain other issues before the Commission included very interesting ones such as:
· Whether the Appellate Authority is justified in declining to admit the appeal on the ground that appeal for the second time cannot be made in the same case to the Appellate Authority when in this particular case the first appeal was against the first information provided by the CPIO and not a request for reconsideration of an appeal already made thereon. The first appeal was tendered on the grounds of absence of response.
· When some confidential and secret documents have been revealed, why other similar documents marked secret and confidential are not being revealed.
In this case Shri Nasli Wadia, Mumbai had made a request to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for copies of various documents connected with Jinnah House, particularly with reference to letter written by Mrs. Dina Wadia (Mother of Shri Nasli Wadia) to the Prime Minister of India.
When no response was received, Shri Wadia had made the first appeal. The AA in his Order wrote:
The CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs is directed that subject to the provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005, he may, without any further delay, provide the information requested by the applicant in his original application. If any information is withheld under Section 8 of RTI Act, the applicant may be duly informed of the reasons for withholding the information.
CPIO then made detailed response and provided various copies and further wrote:
As you are aware, the matter of Jinnah House has been subject of discussion at the inter-governmental level between India and Pakistan from time to time. Issues concerning our relations with Pakistan are involved. A close scrutiny of the documents pertaining to this case indicate that disclosure of the contents of some of the documents would prejudicially affect the relation of India with a foreign State. After a careful consideration, it has, therefore, been decided to invoke provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of that part of the information and not to disclose the same.
With this background, the issues as noted above had arisen.
On the first issue as above, the Bench decided as under:
The CPIO decided the matter for the first time concerning the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and communicated the decision to the appellant vide letter dated 23rd August, 2007, after receiving the directions of the 1st Appellate Authority. Against this Order, the applicant approached the First AA and he rejected the appeal on the ground that there cannot be a second appeal as the same matter has been earlier agitated before him and decided by him. In this case, no such appeal had thus far been preferred on the information provided, and this was therefore not a second appeal, but the first appeal since the matter in question had not hitherto been addressed by the First AA. The First Appellate Authority has therefore erred in rejecting the appeal in an arbitrary manner. He should instead have considered the matter and decided the appeal on merit. Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
Above is a very interesting issue, possibly for the first time, decided and
shall serve as useful precedent.
On the second issue above, the Bench wrote:
The CPIO, MEA on scrutiny of the documents pertaining to the case is convinced that the disclosure of contents of some of the documents would prejudicially affect relations with a foreign State.
The CPIO has, therefore, invoked provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of only that part of the information that stands denied. It is for the concerned public authority, which is the authorised agency for the purpose, and not for this Commission to take a view as regards applicability of the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) in this case and the Commission is of the view that there will be no obligation on the part of a public authority to provide information if disclosure of the same prejudicially affects relations with a foreign State, which is the responsibility of the MEA.
The Commission went one step ahead and it qualified the above decision as under:
However, the provisions of Section 8(1) have to be read with Section 8(2) and Section 10(1). Under Section 8(2), a public authority may allow access to exempted information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Moreover, u/s.10(1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure.
In the instant case, it is, therefore, necessary to determine as to whether the public interest would justify the disclosure of the information or not, and indeed whether in fact the disclosure of the entire information withheld, including the report of the AG, would compromise the exemption granted by the law. Since this issue has not been determined either by the PIO or the First Appellate Authority, the Commission after careful consideration of the matter decided to call for the relevant documents the disclosure whereof has been denied under Section 8(1)(a). After examining the documents, the Commission will consider whether it would be in public interest to order disclosure or not.
(Shri Nusli Wadia Mumbai vs. MEA: Order dated 16.01.2008 in Appeal
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/001392)
The RTI Act
Further on the Annual Report 2005-06 (i.e. continued from February 08 issue)
· The Central Information Commission has been set up in the Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances. It exercises its powers without being subjected to directions by any other authority.
· The Commission has made use of modern techniques such as video conferencing for hearings where the Public Information Officer and the applicant are both located outside Delhi.
· The Commission has proposed to set up a National Institute of Accountability and Transparency. This Centre would be an extended arm of the Commission, functioning as a single point of contact for undertaking research on accountability and transparency issues and setting up a database of best practices undertaken around the world in this regard.
· The Commission is also considering the possibility of setting up a call centre for providing guidance to the general public, and senior citizens in particular, so that they do not have to run from pillar to post for submitting RTI applications.
Chapter 3 deals with the subject of Proactive Disclosure Strategies of success. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act provides that It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
The Governments duty to publish information proactively is a natural corollary of the publics right to information and forms the sine qua non of transparent and accountable governance. It is this provision that makes Section 4, which requires the Government to publish all information except that which the law permits to be kept secret, the most pivotal element and forward-looking clause of the RTI Act. The objectives of the Act would be achieved in the truest sense when Section 4 is implemented in letter and spirit. This is a landmark achievement of the Government in more ways than one.
The chapter notes, which was widely not known, that Section 4 is strengthened by the penalty powers vested in the Central Information Commission, which can be invoked against those information officers who violate the basic provisions of the Act. Such violation includes not proactively publishing the information specified under the Section both electronically and by other means.
Section 4 is strengthened by the penalty powers vested in the Central Information Commission, which can be invoked against those information officers who violate the basic provisions of the Act. Such violation includes not proactively publishing the information specified under the Section both electronically and by other means.
The Central Information Commission can, under Section 19 (8)(a) (iii), require every public authority to publish certain information or categories of information under the Act. Should the public authority not comply, Section 19 (8)(c) gives the Commission the power to impose any of the penalties provided under this Act.
The RTI Act is among the strongest pieces of legislation in the world providing citizens access to public documents. Indian lawmakers and civil society had studied the experience of other countries and the Act has incorporated best practices from information access laws of countries as diverse as the United States, Sweden, South Africa, United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada and even the Pakistan Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002.
The Government has recognised the need for filing or indexing its records and has published the Central Secretariats Manual of office procedure, under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances.
The practice of record management in the Government of India involves recording, retention, retrieval and weeding out of papers/files and nominating an officer not below the level of a Section Officer as Departmental Records Officer (DRO) to be in charge of overall records management.
Records are divided into three categories:
¨ Category A records for permanent preservation and microfilming.
¨ Category B records for permanent preservation for administrative purposes but not for microfilming.
¨ Category C records to be kept for a specified period, not exceeding 10 years.
The Manual notes that files need to be indexed at the time of their recording. The records retention schedule must be reviewed at least once every five years.
An efficient records management system is a prerequisite for an accountable and transparent Government that is accessible to the public. Public authorities must not forget that without effective records management, it is pointless to have an information access legislation that guarantees the public right to government information but not access to it, due to the lack of proper documentation of this information, manually or electronically.
Other News
= Details of PIOs
A professor from a college affiliated to the University of Mumbai, who wanted to know about the procedures pertaining to the assessment of papers, complained to the State Information Commission (SIC) that the university and its affiliates were not implementing key provisions of the RTI Act.
The SIC rapped the university and ordered that the institution and all its affiliated colleges put up boards, specifying the details of public information officers (PIOs) and appellate officials, on every campus.
= Dont you have any other dhanda.
I dont know how far it is true but Times of India reports a case where Maharashtras CIC, Suresh Joshi allegedly told RTI applicant Divyesh Shah: Dont you have any other dhanda (work)? Shah, using the RTI, has filed several applications, seeking information on various issues related to Panchratna Building including a copy of a stability certificate supposed to have been given by IIT Mumbai for the Panchratna building at Opera House as per the claim of BMC D-ward office and its communication to the Vidhan Sabha. IIT, Mumbai had informed Shah that there was no such certificate in their records. In reply D-ward PIO informed him that the certificate was untraceable. Shah said that this clearly amounts to breach of privilege as the BMC lied to the Vidhan Sabha. Shah is aggrieved that despite there being evidence of willful denial of information, Joshi has never penalised anyone in the case.
= The future of RTI
Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, whose name is now synonymous with RTI, replies to the question from the journalist: What is the future of RTI?
If is continues at this pace RTI will become a mass social movement and usher in a social change in governance. The honest officer will become bolder. It will be a gradual process. Last year there were 8000 RTI applications, this year about 12,000 applications have been made to date. This indicates that people are slowly using RTI to seek answers. As this movement gets stronger the bureaucracy and the politicians will be more vigilant.
In the next five years the movement will grow if we let it grow without hindrance. No government will dare touch RTI – that will be the power. We have to let it grow, it cannot be infant mortality.
= Babus misuse RTI
Nowadays the Central Information Commission (CIC) is busy playing agony aunt to a score of babus whining over various promotional and compensation matters. That seems to be the big new bugbear of the CIC. The trend in babudom, insiders share, is that many bureaucrats are now actually using the RTI Act for their own personal vested interest. Ranging from scrutinizing file details when superseded, to petty complaints on out-of-turn allotment of houses, these applications make up an alarming 40 per cent of the ones received by the CIC.
No wonder then that Wajahat Habihullah, Chief Information Commissioner, is worried about the backlog, as it is already dealing with a huge one of more than 12,000 second appeals by citizens.
= Exemption from RTI
The defence ministrys request for exemption from the Right to Information Act has been turned down by the committee of secretaries which has asked it to come up with a fresh proposal if it wants the benefit for its intelligence wing.
The committee, chaired by cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, also rejected a similar request from the CBI for exemption and inclusion in the second schedule of the RTI, under which as many as 22 organisations have been included for whom the Act is not applicable.
The case of the CBI was not considered necessary in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(h) and other provisions that can be invoked for non-disclosure of sensitive information, the committee ruled. According to section 8(1)(h), an organisation can withhold information which would impede the process of a probe or lead to apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The plea of the directorate general of central excise intelligence for inclusion in second schedule was rejected. However, the plea of the directorate general of income tax was agreed to, in view of the nature of their surveillance activity.
= Entertaining academicians
According to Mr. Vijay Khole, Vice-chancellor of the University of Mumbai: When a Nobel Laureate or a central minister comes to visit the university, its but obvious that he would receive five-star treatment. As for holding meetings and taking visitors to posh restaurants, this was proof of how vibrant the Rajiv Gandhi centre was.
Ice-creams from Gelato Italiano, US Pizza on the Pune Express Highway and meals at Cream Centre and Legacy of China these are just a few of a long list of hospitality bills at the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Contemporary Studies in Mumbai University that ran into over Rs.1.5 lakh and were footed by the University Grants Commission.
RTI application filed by Madhu Paranjape, a senior teacher at Kirti College, showed that from March 2006 to December 2007, the hospitality and travel expenses of the centre crossed Rs.4 lakh.
= Babus as Info chiefs
RTI activists, led by social worker Anna Hazare, will soon call on President Pratibha Patil and PM Manmohan Singh to protest against the appointment of retired bureaucrats as information commissioners.
Hazare said that he has specifically brought to Maharashtra CMs notice that the performance of retired bureaucrats was dismal and that he should refrain from giving them plum assignments. So far, Deshmukh has appointed three retired bureaucrats-former MMRDA commissioner Suresh Joshi (chief information commissioner), former legislature secretary Vilas Patil and former PWD secretary Vijay Borge, as commissioners for Nagpur and Aurangabad divisions respectively. He brought to Deshmukhs notice about their poor disposal rate. They clear less than 100 cases per month. As a result, in the last two years, more than 13,000 cases are pending. This defeats the basic purpose of the legislation. As reported, status of RTI cases as on December, 2007 is: Appeals filed 15333, only small number disposed off, appeals pending: 12882.
= RTI and Valuable Art
Management of J J School of Arts started compiling an inventory of its treasure trove only when the RTI application was made by J J alumnus Vidya Vaidya asking for a complete list of art works stored in the school. It was feared by her that valuable art works lying in the college vaults were ruined by termites, fungus and humidity. Now the School has discovered thousands of works by the ex-students, some of them now well-known artists.
The dates for RTI Clinic in March are 2nd, 3rd & 5th Saturdays, i.e. 8th, 15th and 29th (4th Saturday 22nd March is holiday) 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at BCAS Premises.
Words:2833
r2i
Right to Information
Narayan Varma
Chartered Accountant
CICs decisions
· Jinnah House on Malabar Hill
In past we have reported on this subject. Now there is an interesting Order passed by three member bench of Central Information Commission on this subject. Along with the issue on the subject matter of appeal, certain other issues before the Commission included very interesting ones such as:
· Whether the Appellate Authority is justified in declining to admit the appeal on the ground that appeal for the second time cannot be made in the same case to the Appellate Authority when in this particular case the first appeal was against the first information provided by the CPIO and not a request for reconsideration of an appeal already made thereon. The first appeal was tendered on the grounds of absence of response.
· When some confidential and secret documents have been revealed, why other similar documents marked secret and confidential are not being revealed.
In this case Shri Nasli Wadia, Mumbai had made a request to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for copies of various documents connected with Jinnah House, particularly with reference to letter written by Mrs. Dina Wadia (Mother of Shri Nasli Wadia) to the Prime Minister of India.
When no response was received, Shri Wadia had made the first appeal. The AA in his Order wrote:
The CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs is directed that subject to the provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005, he may, without any further delay, provide the information requested by the applicant in his original application. If any information is withheld under Section 8 of RTI Act, the applicant may be duly informed of the reasons for withholding the information.
CPIO then made detailed response and provided various copies and further wrote:
As you are aware, the matter of Jinnah House has been subject of discussion at the inter-governmental level between India and Pakistan from time to time. Issues concerning our relations with Pakistan are involved. A close scrutiny of the documents pertaining to this case indicate that disclosure of the contents of some of the documents would prejudicially affect the relation of India with a foreign State. After a careful consideration, it has, therefore, been decided to invoke provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of that part of the information and not to disclose the same.
With this background, the issues as noted above had arisen.
On the first issue as above, the Bench decided as under:
The CPIO decided the matter for the first time concerning the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and communicated the decision to the appellant vide letter dated 23rd August, 2007, after receiving the directions of the 1st Appellate Authority. Against this Order, the applicant approached the First AA and he rejected the appeal on the ground that there cannot be a second appeal as the same matter has been earlier agitated before him and decided by him. In this case, no such appeal had thus far been preferred on the information provided, and this was therefore not a second appeal, but the first appeal since the matter in question had not hitherto been addressed by the First AA. The First Appellate Authority has therefore erred in rejecting the appeal in an arbitrary manner. He should instead have considered the matter and decided the appeal on merit. Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
Above is a very interesting issue, possibly for the first time, decided and
shall serve as useful precedent.
On the second issue above, the Bench wrote:
The CPIO, MEA on scrutiny of the documents pertaining to the case is convinced that the disclosure of contents of some of the documents would prejudicially affect relations with a foreign State.
The CPIO has, therefore, invoked provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of only that part of the information that stands denied. It is for the concerned public authority, which is the authorised agency for the purpose, and not for this Commission to take a view as regards applicability of the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) in this case and the Commission is of the view that there will be no obligation on the part of a public authority to provide information if disclosure of the same prejudicially affects relations with a foreign State, which is the responsibility of the MEA.
The Commission went one step ahead and it qualified the above decision as under:
However, the provisions of Section 8(1) have to be read with Section 8(2) and Section 10(1). Under Section 8(2), a public authority may allow access to exempted information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Moreover, u/s.10(1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure.
In the instant case, it is, therefore, necessary to determine as to whether the public interest would justify the disclosure of the information or not, and indeed whether in fact the disclosure of the entire information withheld, including the report of the AG, would compromise the exemption granted by the law. Since this issue has not been determined either by the PIO or the First Appellate Authority, the Commission after careful consideration of the matter decided to call for the relevant documents the disclosure whereof has been denied under Section 8(1)(a). After examining the documents, the Commission will consider whether it would be in public interest to order disclosure or not.
(Shri Nusli Wadia Mumbai vs. MEA: Order dated 16.01.2008 in Appeal
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/001392)
The RTI Act
Further on the Annual Report 2005-06 (i.e. continued from February 08 issue)
· The Central Information Commission has been set up in the Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances. It exercises its powers without being subjected to directions by any other authority.
· The Commission has made use of modern techniques such as video conferencing for hearings where the Public Information Officer and the applicant are both located outside Delhi.
· The Commission has proposed to set up a National Institute of Accountability and Transparency. This Centre would be an extended arm of the Commission, functioning as a single point of contact for undertaking research on accountability and transparency issues and setting up a database of best practices undertaken around the world in this regard.
· The Commission is also considering the possibility of setting up a call centre for providing guidance to the general public, and senior citizens in particular, so that they do not have to run from pillar to post for submitting RTI applications.
Chapter 3 deals with the subject of Proactive Disclosure Strategies of success. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act provides that It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
The Governments duty to publish information proactively is a natural corollary of the publics right to information and forms the sine qua non of transparent and accountable governance. It is this provision that makes Section 4, which requires the Government to publish all information except that which the law permits to be kept secret, the most pivotal element and forward-looking clause of the RTI Act. The objectives of the Act would be achieved in the truest sense when Section 4 is implemented in letter and spirit. This is a landmark achievement of the Government in more ways than one.
The chapter notes, which was widely not known, that Section 4 is strengthened by the penalty powers vested in the Central Information Commission, which can be invoked against those information officers who violate the basic provisions of the Act. Such violation includes not proactively publishing the information specified under the Section both electronically and by other means.
Section 4 is strengthened by the penalty powers vested in the Central Information Commission, which can be invoked against those information officers who violate the basic provisions of the Act. Such violation includes not proactively publishing the information specified under the Section both electronically and by other means.
The Central Information Commission can, under Section 19 (8)(a) (iii), require every public authority to publish certain information or categories of information under the Act. Should the public authority not comply, Section 19 (8)(c) gives the Commission the power to impose any of the penalties provided under this Act.
The RTI Act is among the strongest pieces of legislation in the world providing citizens access to public documents. Indian lawmakers and civil society had studied the experience of other countries and the Act has incorporated best practices from information access laws of countries as diverse as the United States, Sweden, South Africa, United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada and even the Pakistan Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002.
The Government has recognised the need for filing or indexing its records and has published the Central Secretariats Manual of office procedure, under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances.
The practice of record management in the Government of India involves recording, retention, retrieval and weeding out of papers/files and nominating an officer not below the level of a Section Officer as Departmental Records Officer (DRO) to be in charge of overall records management.
Records are divided into three categories:
¨ Category A records for permanent preservation and microfilming.
¨ Category B records for permanent preservation for administrative purposes but not for microfilming.
¨ Category C records to be kept for a specified period, not exceeding 10 years.
The Manual notes that files need to be indexed at the time of their recording. The records retention schedule must be reviewed at least once every five years.
An efficient records management system is a prerequisite for an accountable and transparent Government that is accessible to the public. Public authorities must not forget that without effective records management, it is pointless to have an information access legislation that guarantees the public right to government information but not access to it, due to the lack of proper documentation of this information, manually or electronically.
Other News
= Details of PIOs
A professor from a college affiliated to the University of Mumbai, who wanted to know about the procedures pertaining to the assessment of papers, complained to the State Information Commission (SIC) that the university and its affiliates were not implementing key provisions of the RTI Act.
The SIC rapped the university and ordered that the institution and all its affiliated colleges put up boards, specifying the details of public information officers (PIOs) and appellate officials, on every campus.
= Dont you have any other dhanda.
I dont know how far it is true but Times of India reports a case where Maharashtras CIC, Suresh Joshi allegedly told RTI applicant Divyesh Shah: Dont you have any other dhanda (work)? Shah, using the RTI, has filed several applications, seeking information on various issues related to Panchratna Building including a copy of a stability certificate supposed to have been given by IIT Mumbai for the Panchratna building at Opera House as per the claim of BMC D-ward office and its communication to the Vidhan Sabha. IIT, Mumbai had informed Shah that there was no such certificate in their records. In reply D-ward PIO informed him that the certificate was untraceable. Shah said that this clearly amounts to breach of privilege as the BMC lied to the Vidhan Sabha. Shah is aggrieved that despite there being evidence of willful denial of information, Joshi has never penalised anyone in the case.
= The future of RTI
Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, whose name is now synonymous with RTI, replies to the question from the journalist: What is the future of RTI?
If is continues at this pace RTI will become a mass social movement and usher in a social change in governance. The honest officer will become bolder. It will be a gradual process. Last year there were 8000 RTI applications, this year about 12,000 applications have been made to date. This indicates that people are slowly using RTI to seek answers. As this movement gets stronger the bureaucracy and the politicians will be more vigilant.
In the next five years the movement will grow if we let it grow without hindrance. No government will dare touch RTI – that will be the power. We have to let it grow, it cannot be infant mortality.
= Babus misuse RTI
Nowadays the Central Information Commission (CIC) is busy playing agony aunt to a score of babus whining over various promotional and compensation matters. That seems to be the big new bugbear of the CIC. The trend in babudom, insiders share, is that many bureaucrats are now actually using the RTI Act for their own personal vested interest. Ranging from scrutinizing file details when superseded, to petty complaints on out-of-turn allotment of houses, these applications make up an alarming 40 per cent of the ones received by the CIC.
No wonder then that Wajahat Habihullah, Chief Information Commissioner, is worried about the backlog, as it is already dealing with a huge one of more than 12,000 second appeals by citizens.
= Exemption from RTI
The defence ministrys request for exemption from the Right to Information Act has been turned down by the committee of secretaries which has asked it to come up with a fresh proposal if it wants the benefit for its intelligence wing.
The committee, chaired by cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar, also rejected a similar request from the CBI for exemption and inclusion in the second schedule of the RTI, under which as many as 22 organisations have been included for whom the Act is not applicable.
The case of the CBI was not considered necessary in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(h) and other provisions that can be invoked for non-disclosure of sensitive information, the committee ruled. According to section 8(1)(h), an organisation can withhold information which would impede the process of a probe or lead to apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The plea of the directorate general of central excise intelligence for inclusion in second schedule was rejected. However, the plea of the directorate general of income tax was agreed to, in view of the nature of their surveillance activity.
= Entertaining academicians
According to Mr. Vijay Khole, Vice-chancellor of the University of Mumbai: When a Nobel Laureate or a central minister comes to visit the university, its but obvious that he would receive five-star treatment. As for holding meetings and taking visitors to posh restaurants, this was proof of how vibrant the Rajiv Gandhi centre was.
Ice-creams from Gelato Italiano, US Pizza on the Pune Express Highway and meals at Cream Centre and Legacy of China these are just a few of a long list of hospitality bills at the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Contemporary Studies in Mumbai University that ran into over Rs.1.5 lakh and were footed by the University Grants Commission.
RTI application filed by Madhu Paranjape, a senior teacher at Kirti College, showed that from March 2006 to December 2007, the hospitality and travel expenses of the centre crossed Rs.4 lakh.
= Babus as Info chiefs
RTI activists, led by social worker Anna Hazare, will soon call on President Pratibha Patil and PM Manmohan Singh to protest against the appointment of retired bureaucrats as information commissioners.
Hazare said that he has specifically brought to Maharashtra CMs notice that the performance of retired bureaucrats was dismal and that he should refrain from giving them plum assignments. So far, Deshmukh has appointed three retired bureaucrats-former MMRDA commissioner Suresh Joshi (chief information commissioner), former legislature secretary Vilas Patil and former PWD secretary Vijay Borge, as commissioners for Nagpur and Aurangabad divisions respectively. He brought to Deshmukhs notice about their poor disposal rate. They clear less than 100 cases per month. As a result, in the last two years, more than 13,000 cases are pending. This defeats the basic purpose of the legislation. As reported, status of RTI cases as on December, 2007 is: Appeals filed 15333, only small number disposed off, appeals pending: 12882.
= RTI and Valuable Art
Management of J J School of Arts started compiling an inventory of its treasure trove only when the RTI application was made by J J alumnus Vidya Vaidya asking for a complete list of art works stored in the school. It was feared by her that valuable art works lying in the college vaults were ruined by termites, fungus and humidity. Now the School has discovered thousands of works by the ex-students, some of them now well-known artists.
The dates for RTI Clinic in March are 2nd, 3rd & 5th Saturdays, i.e. 8th, 15th and 29th (4th Saturday 22nd March is holiday) 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at BCAS Premises.
Nv/aa/ (Sys.4/My doc/RTI-new-March 08)
Mr. narayan Varma