Indian Express: Pune: Friday, July
22, 2016.
AFTER Chief
Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Wednesday said that his government would send a
factual report on the role of State Chief Information Commissioner Ratnakar
Gaikwad in the Ambedkar Bhavan demolition in Mumbai, RTI activists said Gaikwad
had no option but to resign or else he would be sacked.
“The post of
a State Information Commissioner is a constitutional post and the state
government cannot make any appointments or dismissals. Only the Governor has
these powers, so we will prepare a factual report about Ratnakar Gaikwad’s
involvement and send it to the Governor’s office,” the chief minister had said.
When
contacted, Gaikwad’s office said he was not available. Gaikwad did not respond to
calls or text messages.
According to
RTI activists, Section 17 of RTI Act, subject to the provisions of sub-Section
(3), says that the Chief State Information Commissioner (CSIC) or the State
Information Commissioner (SIC) can be removed from office only by order of the
Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity, after the Supreme
Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has after inquiry reported
that the CSIC or the SIC ought to be removed on such ground.
As per
Section 17(3) (e) of RTI Act, the CSIC or the SIC can be removed if he has
acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect his functions.
As per
Section 17(4), the CSIC or the SIC can be removed if he or she, in any way, is
concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of
the government of the state or participates in any way in the profit thereof or
gets any benefit or emoluments from there, according to RTI activists.
In the
present case, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, Gaikwad not only took an active
part in the demolition of Ambedkar Bhavan, but also openly oversaw and defended
the demolition which took place at midnight.
Kumbhar said
Gaikwad had told a section of the media that he wasn’t connected with the trust
that allegedly carried out the demolition and was merely “advising” the office
bearers. “But he was seen on television, citing the reason for the demolition
at midnight…,” Kumbhar said.
Kumbhar said
Gaikwad’s behaviour in the Ambedkar Bhawan demolition case clearly showed that
he had taken a lot of interest in it.
“It was not
just a passive advice, it was definitely an active participation which falls
under Section 17 of the RTI Act. There may be counter arguments on whether
information commissioners are allowed to give advice to NGOs or people while in
office. However, they are definitely not allowed to take an active part in any
organisations’ matters directly or indirectly.”
Kumbhar said
if the government reported Gaikwad’s involvement in the Ambedkar Bhawan
demolition case to the Governor, the Governor might start his removal
procedure. “Looking at the increasing pressure on the government and the
assurance given by the chief minister in the legislature, the government will
definitely send such a report. In that case, the Governor might suspend Gaikwad
from office and if deemed necessary prohibit him from attending office during
the inquiry. To avoid all this embarrassment, Gaikwad has an option to resign
immediately, or else, he is in for a sack.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
