Dear all,
I have narrated below a story from Bihar where RTI advocators succeeded in prevailing upon the State Information Commission to impose maximum penalty on erring officers of the district administration. Please feel free to circulate this story amongst your networks.
In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm. You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your refusal to receive email alerts.
Thanks
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
Tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
Fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
alternate email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
Two senior officers of the district administration in Bihar fined for contravening
RTI advocates in Bihar have succeeded in prevailing upon the State Information Commission to impose penalties under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on two senior officers of the Madhubani district administration. On 11 September, 2009 the Bihar Information Commission imposed the maximum penalty permissible under the RTI Act on the Additional District Collector (Apar-Samaharta) and the Circle Officer (Anchal Adhikari) for repeated contraventions of the RTI Act. The Commission also issued a notice to these officials to show cause as to why disciplinary action ought not to be recommended against them. All this has been made possible due to the untiring efforts of vigilant RTI adcocators working in Madhubani. For more details, please read on.
Madhubani, a border district in the north Indian state of Bihar, famous for its unique style of paintings using natural dyes, is amongst 200 districts that were initially selected for implementing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in 2005. Readers will recollect that the NREGA guarantees a minimum of 100 days wage employment to every rural household. This is a unique flagship programme of the United Progressive Alliance Government intended to ensure livelihood security for families living in villages and hamlets. Wherever alert civil society organisations and activists monitor the implementation of this programme, corruption is of a much lower order; in others mismanagement of funds is rampant.
Renovation of Videshwar Sthan Pokhar- a pond in Bhith Bhagwanpur village of Madhepur tehsil (sub-district), was one of the projects drawn up by the local gram panchayat under the NREG scheme (NREGS) for the financial year 2006-07. Gram panchayats are popularly elected local, rural self-governing bodies and have the primary responsibility for identifying and implementing developmental projects under NREGS utilising the labour of local residents. The cost of the project was estimated at Rs. 7.7 lakhs (USD 15,700 approximately 1USD= INR 49). The renovation work actually started in June 2007 under the supervision of the Secretary of the panchayat. It must be noted that this project was already delayed and was moved to the next financial year (2007-08) for completion.
Even though NREGA prohibits the use of heavy machinery in earth works (as that would defeat its very purpose of providing wage employment to people), the Secretary hired a tractor and employed daily wage labourers from outside the village. The work was hastily abandoned at the start of the monsoon season and never completed thereafter. After watching the developments (or the lack of such) for more than four months the residents of Bhith Bhagwanpur decided to do something about this blatant violation of the letter and spirit of NREGA.
Mr. Lakshman Jha, Convenor of Jan Jagran Samiti, a local volunteer organisation and a resident of the same village, sent a complaint to the District Collector (head of the district administration) in November 2007 alleging irregularities in the execution of the project. He sought an investigation and fixing of accountability of corrupt officials who were in charge of the project. The district administration did not even bother to send him a response. After waiting for six months, in May 2008, Mr. Jha filed an information request under the RTI Act with the Additional District Collector who is the Public Information Officer (PIO) with the office of the District Collector. He sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of the cost estimate approved for the renovation project;
2. Certified copy of the muster roll (record of wages paid);
3. Procedure required to be observed by the district administration whenever it receives such complaints of irregularities;
4. Name and designation of the officers tasked with investigating the complaint;
5. Daily progress report of the action taken on his complaint; and
6. Details of action that must be taken against elements that indulge in such irregularities.
Mr. Jha received no response to his RTI application either. In December 2008 he filed a complaint under the RTI Act with the Bihar Information Commission. He demanded that a monetary penalty be imposed on the erring officer. The Commission informed him in March 2009 that his complaint had been admitted and that an inquiry had been launched. Later the Commission directed the PIO to provide all the information to the applicant free of cost. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO asking him why a penalty should not be imposed on him as the failure to send a response to the RTI application was unreasonable.
Mr. Jha waited for the information in vain. Then he filed a second complaint alleging non-compliance by the PIO with the Commissions orders. The Commission sought an explanation from the PIO. The PIO stated that he had transferred the RTI application to the Circle Officer under section 6(3) of the RTI Act as the matter related to the latters jurisdiction. After scheduling a hearing in the matter, the State Information Commissioner (Mr. P N Narayanan) found that the information was available with the Circle Officer and ordered him to provide all the information on or before 7 July 2009 free of cost.
The Circle Officer sent a communication to Mr. Jha on 16 July, nine days after the deadline set by the Commission, stating that his office did not have any information about the complaint regards irregularities originally filed by Mr. Jha. He instructed Mr. Jha to deposit additional fees for obtaining copies of other documents sought in the RTI application. Mr. Jha had a right to get the information free of cost under the provisions of the RTI Act as the officials had responded well beyond the 30-day deadline stipulated in the Act. He brought this matter to the notice of the Commission.
The Commission scheduled another hearing on 11 September 2009 which Mr. Jha could not attend for reasons of health. Mr. Ajay Balajee of Janadesh represented him and forcefully argued that penalty be imposed on the officers who were playing soccer with the RTI application. The Commission found that the information regards the complaint filed by Mr. Jha lay well within the jurisdiction of the office of the District Collector. The PIO ought to have provided information regards action taken on the complaint about the alleged irregularities instead of washing his hands off it by transferring it to the Circle Officer. The Commission found that the PIO has misled the Commission in this regard. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- (USD 510) was imposed on the PIO. The Circle Officer was also fined Rs. 25,000/- for delaying the furnishing of information without reasonable cause and demanding fee payment even though the Commission had ordered that the information be provided to Mr. Jha free of cost.
It remains to be seen whether these officers will pay up quietly or challenge the penalty order before the High Court as is becoming the habit in many States. Mr Jha and Mr. Balajee are happy that the Commission has held the erring officers accountable. They are waiting for the documents so that they may begin the process of verifying the records and then demand accountability of the officials who have mismanaged NREGA funds meant for the rural poor.
[During 2008-09 CHRI trained Mr. Lakshman Jha and Mr. Ajay Balajee in the intricacies of the RTI Act. They are part of a core group of advocators of transparency and accountability working in Madhubani district. Janadesh is the secretariat of this group. CHRI collaborates with Janadesh and other partner organisations in Bihar for the promotion of peoples access to information. Ajay Balajee may be contacted at 09955423689 or ajay.balajee@gmail.com]
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
