NGT spends Rs 33,050 to claim Rs 10!

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, 10 July 2015.

It's a case of penny wise and pound foolish. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) spent Rs 33,050 to claim Rs 10.

While seeking information under the RTI Act, Alok Kumar Ghosh attached a court stamp of Rs 10 rather than a postal order or demand draft of the same amount as stipulated under the rules. Not only did the tribunal reject the application but also paid postal charges in sending a negative response and retainership of Rs 33,050 to a lawyer to justify this action in the Central Information Commission.

Ghosh had sought information related to exams conducted by the NGT for an in-house position, the candidates shortlisted along with marks and names among other details. When he got no response, the applicant filed a complaint with the CIC.

Pulling up the NGT, information commission M Sridhar Acharyulu said, "The NGT pays Rs 31,000 as retainer (Rs 11,000 plus Rs 21,000 for first and second appeals) asking its advocates to present expert argument how absence of IPO (Indian postal order) for Rs 10 is a stumbling block to furnish information about selection and rejection of candidates for some posts. This reflects lack of concern for transparency and also for public money and leaves common man wondering about the reasonability of this attitude. Is it worth spending Rs 33,050 to deny information?"

Directing the NGT to provide Ghosh with the required information within 21 days, Acharyulu said, "It is pathetic that such a simple request for information has been dragged to the level of second appeal, engaging some highly paid advocates and building heaps of documents with multiple files consuming reams of paper (which means some trees and this is a clear environmental wastage besides contributing pollution by a green public authority), spending huge amount of money besides consuming precious time of public servants including that of the commission."

Arguing that the information should have been made available by NGT suo moto, the CIC has sought an explanation from the public authority on why compensation should not be paid to the applicant for denial of information.