The
Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 22 September 2015.
It is the
legitimate expectation of the people that designated senior officers would act
objectively and secure the rightful information for the applicants.
If the office
of public authority has shifted to a comfortable premises, that should have
provided enough scope and reason for organising files but not to lose the
files. The repeated answer of “files not traceable” is reflecting
disorganisation, and it is not acceptable in an RTI regime.
The appellant should clearly state the
requirement of information. Specification is the quality of application.
Ambiguity will delay or even lead to denial. The Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) has to make a positive effort to give information.
Saying “files
not traceable” or “we are finding them” or “missing” is not provided by the
law. Not keeping the promise of providing information in spite of the order of
First Appeal is not a legally valid attitude.
The First
Appellate Authority cannot pass a vague order, without time limit. If the CPIO
cannot be found personally responsible, the Public Authority might become
accountable for delay or denial. Then the remedy will be the compensation.
Most of the
people do not know how to frame information request. And most of Public
Information Officers (PIOs) find it difficult to provide correct responses.
Capacity building on either side is important. The RTI Act grants right to
collect existing information, but not the right to seek clarifications, answers
to questions or solutions to the problems or grievances.
An example on
hand is the information request framed by one D Suresh Kumar filed an RTI
application to the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India, for information pertaining to Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary
and its de-notification for Indira Sagar Polavaram Project.
This is how
he framed his request. He wanted certified copies of a proposal sent by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, recommendation of the National Board for Wildlife
(NBWL) for diversion of certain part of Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary for Indira
Sagar Polavaram Project, file notings related to the order of NBWL recommending
the same, note sheets relating to the order of NBWL recommendation, notes of
all meetings of NBWL with regard to diversion of Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary, all
meeting minutes of standing committee and other committees of NBWL which have
discussed Indira Sagar Polavaram Project, site inspection report of standing
committee of NBWL, Central Empowered Committees (CECs) report on Indira Sagar
Polavaram Project, the order of NBWL recommending diversion, the order of
Supreme Court of India approving de-reservation/de-notification of Papikonda
Wildlife Sanctuary, Geographical map of Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary, along
with GPS coordinates before it was proposed, notification issued by the AP
government notifying Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary, and geographical map of the
proposed Papikonda National Park.
Through the
online RTI portal, the CPIO said: “The requested information is not traceable/mixed
with other files in the record room during the shifting of the Ministry from
CGO complex to New Building. As soon as the file is traced out, information
would be provided to you.”
The First
Appellate Authority (FAA) felt that though there was response in time, but no
information was given though there was no denial of information too. The FAA is expected to pass an order based on
the facts and conclusions with specificity and time frame, without which the
whole exercise of first appeal would become futile, and the purpose of law will
be defeated.
Appellants’
rights are recognised but the FAA did nothing, and that is a violation of his
right to information. It is the legitimate expectation of the people that
designated senior officers would act objectively and secure the rightful
information for the applicants. The CPIO said that because of the shifting of
office, records of wildlife clearance granted to Polavaram project were not
traceable initially.
However,
files were traced and assured to send the information to the applicant within a
week.The CPIO said the files were traced later and assured to send the
information to the applicant within a week.
If the office of public authority has shifted to a comfortable premises,
that should have provided enough scope and reason for organising files but not
to lose the files.
The repeated
answer of “files not traceable” is reflecting disorganization, and it is not
acceptable in an RTI regime. There is no point in reiterating the same without
implementing the direction of the First Appellate Authority. The Complainant
was kept waiting in the belief that the wildlife files would be traced as
promised.
But it was an
endless wait for him even after he approached the CIC in second appeal. The
core function of the department is to conserve forests, secure wildlife and
also preserve the files regarding those functions. Losing them and not
expediting the process of tracing and providing that information is not proper
on the part of public authority.
It has
infringed upon the right to information of the community and the planned legal
action for preservation of wildlife and tribal rights kept pending with endless
wait.It is a peculiar situation. Even after getting a favourable order in first
appeal, the appellant is compelled to come in second appeal because of its
non-implementation besides not being informed about the possibility of its
implementation.
Because of
this attitude of CPIO, the appellant was compelled to come to the Commission,
which is forced to take up the job of getting the FAA order implemented. In fact, the Commission is not the ‘execution
court’ of orders of FAA. The public authority knows that it has to give
information, but they are deferring it by an excuse.
When they have
traced the files, what stops them from furnishing the same? Why the promise of
providing information within one week is not provided? If the files were not
traceable initially, apparently, it is because of the disorganization of public
authority. It is not known whether PIO is responsible for non-supply of
information even after the files are traced, or whether public authority is strategically
denying the same.
The CPIO is
part of the entire machinery, who alone cannot be held responsible for missing
of files and delay in supply of information.
But public authority should be surely responsible for both. The
Commission found it a deserving situation to compensate the appellant who filed
RTI application in public interest, and decided to award compensation of Rs
15,000 for causing loss and harassment by unreasonable and illegal claim of
non-traceability of records, which is being used as a shield to stall the Right
to Information of the appellants, and not giving copies even after the files
were traced.
The
Commission has directed the Public Authority and the Government of Andhra
Pradesh to furnish the appellant the certified copies of complete documents
relating to Wildlife Clearance granted Indira Sagar Polavaram Project including
correspondence and file notings within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
Experience of
this second appeal shows several aspects of working of RTI at three levels. The
appellant should clearly state the requirement of information. Specification is
the quality of application. Ambiguity will delay or even lead to denial. The
CPIO has to make a positive effort to give information. Saying “files not
traceable” or “we are finding them” or “missing” are not provided by law.
Not keeping
the promise of providing information in spite of the order of First Appeal is
not a legally valid attitude. The First
Appellate Authority (FAA) cannot pass a vague order, without time limit. If the
CPIO cannot be found personally responsible, the Public Authority might become
accountable for delay or denial. Then the remedy will be the compensation.
.JPG)
.JPG)
