@#@#
ABC, an NGO working in remote tribal areas of Bastar wanted to know how much wages had been paid to the tribals for the last one year under NREGS. ABC, on behalf of the tribals, drafted an RTI application and gave it to the PIO of the Rural Development Department. The PIO wanted to know why the NGO was seeking this information and what they would do with it. Upon learning that the information is to be used to file a case of misappropriation, the PIO refused to part with the information saying the information was huge and may disproportionately divert the resources of the Department concerned.
***** Point out the procedural breach that the PIO has committed in implementing the RTI Act, 2005. Give adeuqate reasons / references from the provisions of `RTI Act, 2005`.
I dont know how many of you come across these words, but this is the third PIO from whom I have received the similar words almost copy pasted. It seems the lines have spread among all PIOs with instruction to use them as tool to deterrent the RTI applicant. The lines reads as follows :
With reference to your application under RTI Act on the above it is informaed that RTI Act-2005 does not cast on Public Authority any obligation to answer the queries in which petition amount to elicit answers to his question, which prefixes, such as, why, what, when & whether and tht the petitioner right extends only seeking information as fefined in section 2(f) either by pin pointing the files, documents papers of records etc, or by maintaining the type of information as may be available with specified public authority. The information requested in in the nature of queries and therefore, does not amount to "Information" as per definition of RTI Act.
And in this case after knowing that the ABC ,an NGO is asking for the information regarding Wages paid to the TRIBALS under NREGS/MNREGS from the rural departmentto file a case of misappropriation.The PIO refused to provide the information by mentioning an excuse that the information was huge and may disproportionately divert the resources of the Department concerned.
It seems the PIO has created definition of "Information" of their own just to avoid supply of information
******Do you feel RTI could be used for grievance redressal and better service delivery? Cite examples from your knowledge / experience with reference to relevant provisions of the Act where applicable.
//////Definetly the RTI is the very convenient way redress a grievance because the information provided under this mechanism is correct and mostly updated.
The Right to Information (RTI) Act has been reduced to a grievance redressal system with more than 70 per cent of appeals falling under this category, deflecting from the purpose of the Act, K.K. Misra, former State Chief Information Commissioner of the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has said.
Mr. Misra was speaking at a discussion organised by the Mahiti Hakku Adhyayana Kendra and the Active Citizens Network on the fifth anniversary of the RTI Act here on Monday.
He said there were more than 12,000 pending cases as the number of officials was not proportionate to the increasing number of cases. “Improper maintenance of records and incomplete computerisation have also contributed to the delay in disposal of cases,” he said.
Mr. Misra suggested that a Public Records Act be enacted in the State, apart from public bodies publishing details of new projects to introduce transparency.
K.A. Thippeswamy, State Information Commissioner, said that Government participation was important in determining the success of the Act. “Many pro-citizen acts such as Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have been introduced. But with regard to the RTI Act, there has been no change in the mindset of the Government,” he said.
He suggested that activists and non-governmental organisations form a network to create awareness and simplify the concept of RTI.
(THE MATERIAL IS FOR AWARENESS ON THE RTI ACT'2005)
No comments:
Post a Comment