IS IT AN ACT OF OMISSION BY COMMISSION?

Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Monday, August 28, 2017.

SIC passes diametrically opposite orders in similar cases, info activists cry foul.

The State Information Commission (SIC) practising double standards? In a case involving two non-governmental entities, both receiving cash and land grants from the government, the commission has taken two different stands in each case.

While it recently declared the Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath (CKP) a public authority considering the cash and grants it received from the state and central governments, in the case of another trust run by MLC BJ Puttaswamy (he is the managing trustee), which has received Rs.5 crore and 8 acres worth several crores from the government, the commission has ruled otherwise.

Crying foul, activists have demanded recalling of this order. Wg Cdr GB Athri (retd), the petitioner in a case of an appeal pertaining to BJ Puttawamy’s trust, Vishwa Ganigara Samudaya Trust (VGS), has on August 11 sought that the state chief information commissioner recall the information commission’s order in the case.

Athri in his May 2015 application had sought information pertaining to the trust. Then he filed his first appeal in July 2015 which had gone unanswered. Then he filed an appeal with the information commission, which issued notices in March 2017.

In May 2017, Athri asked how could the trust not come under the RTI ambit by receiving substantial benefits from the government in form of land and cash.

The same line of argument had been taken by activist T Narasimhamurthy in the CKP case, upholding which the state information commission had declared it a public authority and asked CKP to appoint a PIO.

“I have clearly brought out the facts that VGS has been sanctioned 8 acres of government land and also granted Rs.5 crore in cash. Hence it has to be declared a public authority as ordered by the hon’ble Supreme Court. At no stage has the information commissioner asked for any documents to prove my point, which in any case could have been easily provided,” Athri has explained in his recent communique seeking recalling of an order that closed the case. Athri has sought reopening of the case.

“The subject case, which has been closed erroneously by Chandregowda, information commissioner, in contravention of time-tested orders, positions of stated law on the subject by the highest court of India, is a fit case to be reopened and the next date of hearing be fixed at the earliest to deliver justice,” Athri has said in his petition.

SIC brass maintained that the order could be reviewed based on a petition. While Athri has sent his petition seeking recall and review of its order in case of VGS on August 11, the commission brass maintained that they are yet to receive his petition.

“Such petitions seeking review of an order can be transferred to the concerned information commissioner if it reaches me. Besides, a review by the concerned commissioner can be challenged before the High Court,” L Krishnamurthy, state chief information commissioner told Bangalore Mirror.