Telangana Today: Agra: Tuesday, June 06, 2017.
It appears
that all is not well in Taj Mahal’s Agra. The Chief Information Commission
(CIC) has issued its decision in the case of an appeal made by one Bhim Singh
Sagar, a resident of Agra, requesting information regarding what all
constitutes illegal construction near Taj Mahal.
In the
written decision, a copy of which is with Telangana Today, the Chief
Information Commissioner Madabhushi Sridhar notes that the appellant was
unjustly denied information by RTI authorities in Agra, and that the Chief
Public Information Officers of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and
Agra Development Authority (ADA) are liable under RTI Act to pay a fine each.
The matter
relates to illegal construction in and around the Taj Mahal. The CIC, which is
the highest RTI authority of the country, notes that the appellant Bhim Singh
Sagar “sought specific details of houses, roads, the residential colonies etc.,
within demarcation of 500 meters border from the east to south gate of the Taj
Mahal monument in Agra city”. The CPIO of ASI denied the information, saying it
is not available with them as records stay with civic authorities such as ADA,
following which the appellant approached the CIC.
The CIC in
its analysis notes, “The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under the
Ministry of Culture, is the premier organization responsible for maintenance
and protection of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of
national importance.”
It goes on to
argue, after quoting several media reports of the failure of the ASI to look
into issues pertaining to the damage being caused, over the years, to the
‘aesthetic beauty of the Taj Mahal’, that “The public authority (ASI) thus
cannot deny their responsibility to report the illegal construction and the
officer handling Right to Information (RTI) application cannot ‘escape’
responsibility of answering queries by simply forwarding the application to
other local civic authority (ADA). The ASI Agra is not a post office and the
officers there are not dispatch clerks, they are authorities with
responsibilities prescribed by ASI Act and also RTI Act. They have to answer
the questions of great public interest and their statutory duty without simply
passing on the buck to Agra Development Authority. If need be, they have to
pursue with local civic bodies to initiate all measures to protect the
monument.”
Thereafter,
making a mention of the time given to the concerned authorities and taking into
consideration their response, the CIC gave its decision to fine the CPIOs of
ASI Agra and ADA, and ordered them to furnish the sought information and make
the same public on their websites.
“The
Commission, thus, finds both CPIOs liable under RTI Act for denial of
information. Accordingly, Ms KA Kabui, CPIO and Mr MC Sharma are directed to
pay a sum of Rs 25,000 each in five equal monthly installments. The Appellate
Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs 25,000 each from the salary
payable to, Ms KA Kabui and Mr MC Sharma by way of Demand Draft,” reads the
decision.
The CIC also
made it clear that ASI Agra will have to furnish the information sought under
the RTI appeal by Bhim Singh.
The decision
reads: “The information sought by the appellant has to be published by the
public authority on its own, under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, to secure the
objective and purpose of ASI Act, or to perform duties prescribed by that Act
to protect the historic monument. Besides placing in website the details of
structures, colonies and roads within 500 metres, specifying the borders
wherein illegal constructions will be checked, public authority is also
expected to keep certain printed copies for easy reference and verification by
common people who do not have access to internet. The information to be
disclosed under this category also shall include periodical updates of action
taken on illegal structures, fines imposed or buildings demolished if any out
of 533 illegal structures mentioned by ASI in response to another RTI request,
how many structures were removed, action taken in these cases and also illegal
structures with Taj Trapezium Zone.”
As for the
Agra Development Authority, the CIC decided: “The Commission directs the CPIO
of Agra Development Authority, ADA to prepare a note on details sought by the
appellant, in coordination with the ASI, provide the same to the appellant and
publish on the websites of ADA and ASI Agra.”
Unrelated to
the RTI appeal but pertinent to the issue at hand, the CIC also took a serious
note of media reports that bug infestations from Yamuna River were harming the
‘marble beauty’ of the Taj Mahal. Towards this end, the CIC decided: “The
Commission directs the CPIO of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to
disclose what steps it has taken to prevent eutrophication in Yamuna River
affecting the marble beauty of Taj Mahal, and to avoid the threat of
Goeldichironomus swarm of bug emanating from Yamuna River.” In this context,
eutrophication refers to the increasing fungal life of the river, causing a
population rise of bugs, which in turn were ‘infesting the marble walls of the
monument’.
All
information sought, the CIC ordered, should be furnished before July 1.
.JPG)
.JPG)
