Information in forest dept as elusive as tigers

Times of India: Nagpur: Friday, 12 September 2014.

The state forest department scrupulously follows the forest and wildlife laws but when it comes to RTI Act, the department seems to shy away from providing information to the applicants.

Several complaints have come to fore about forest department information officers either not providing information or giving evasive answers. On May 3, RTI activist Avinash Prabhune from Nagpur had filed an application seeking information on annual estimation exercise to count tigers, co-predators, and prey in Maharashtra from 2011 to 2014 through seven questions.

Till now, he has not been supplied the information. This is despite the fact that every year sanctuaries and national parks have to report estimation data to PCCF (wildlife) office at Van Bhavan here. The information is available.

Yet, Prabhune's application kept moving from one place to another in Van Bhavan. The public information officer (PIO) for Desk 7(2) on May 17 wrote to Prabhune that information relates to Desk-23 (wildlife). The PIO of Desk-23 neither replied nor provided any information. Hence, Prabhune filed an appeal on June 26.

On July 5, PIO again informed Prabhune that appellate authority ie DFO (survey & control) and Desk 23 will finalize his matter. As per RTI Act provisions, first appeal should be disposed of in 30 days of the receipt. In exceptional cases, the appellate authority may take 45 days. However, in cases where disposal of appeal takes more than 30 days, the appellate authority should record in writing reasons for such delay.

Now Prabhune is in process of filing complaint as well as an appeal under the RTI for disclosure of information with state information commissioner (SIC), Nagpur.

Prabhune said earlier principal secretary (forests) Praveen Pardeshi had expressed utter displeasure over not providing minutes of state wildlife board (SWB) meetings to a NGO from Pune. "It was only after a complaint by the NGO that the minutes were uploaded on the forest department's official website," he said.

VK Sinha, additional principal chief conservator of forest (wildlife administration & ecotourism), said, "There is nothing to hide about the information sought by Prabhune. His application never reached me. Yet, information can be given. There is always some confusion among staff on RTI."

"Not replying to my RTI application is not the sole issue. Forest officials delaying it without any fear of their own secretary is really surprising. Details of tiger estimation is not an information to be hidden. It can be required by students for research too," said Prabhune.

Earlier in May, another RTI activist Abhay Kolarkar was also denied similar information by Desk-23. His application of May 29, was replied to without supplying any information on July 15. "I appealed on July 22 and it was only on September 10, I was called by DFO RM Katole to address my appeal," said Kolarkar.