Dr Raja MuzaffarBhat
Government organisations in Jammu & Kashmir continue to violate section 4 (1) (b) of J&K RTI Act 2009. This section lays emphasis on voluntary disclosure of information by public authorities. The emphasis on voluntary disclosure is laid in Central RTI Act of 2005 as well. Under both the State and Central RTI Laws public authorities have been directed to make pro-active disclosure of information within 120 days of the enactment of RTI Act. In J&K the existing RTI law (J&K RTI Act 2009) got enacted on March 20th 2009 , and by the end of June 2009 all the public authorities which includes Government departments, Public sector undertakings as well were supposed to digitize all their records so that they could be uploaded on the official websites. More than seven years have elapsed the records are yet to kept in kept in public domain which violates the section 4(1) (b) of RTI Act. As majority of the Government offices have not digitized the official information, the ultimate sufferers are the ordinary information seekers who intend to get information under Right to Information Act (RTI). The Public Information Officers (PIO’s) in order in discourage information seekers are now asking them to pay exorbitant fees on account of photocopyingcharges etc. In one case a Block Development Officer (BDO) asked an information seeker from Dreygam village in Budgam for the payment of travel expenses for his office staff as the information was to be collected from another BDO office. I have come across many such cases wherein RTI applicants are asked by Government officers (PIOs) to pay hefty photocopying fees and the irony is that no proper calculation is ever made in this regard by the PIO’s. In some cases RTI applicants even paid the exorbitant fees ,but when the information was provided , that was totally misleading and incorrect.
Case 1: FC Revenue office :
An information seeker namely SajadHussainPandit S/O Ali Mohammad Pandit R/O IskanderPoraTehsil Beerwah District Budgam filed an application under J&K RTI Act 2009 before the PIO in the office of Financial Commissioner (FC) Revenue during the month of May 2016. On June 20th 2016, RTI applicant was called in person by FC Revenue office Srinagar and was given an official letter No: FC (Adm-RTI) 02/2016 dated 20/6/2016 wherein he was asked him to pay an amount of Rs 3866 for getting information with regard to appointment of Patwaris more than a decade back. The information seeker alleges that there was bungling and favoritism in the said appointment. The FC Revenue office letter reads as :” In continuation to this office letter No FC(Adm-RTI) 02/2016 Dated 31/05/2016 , I am to say that information demanded by you are428 pages out of which 383 pages are of A 4 size which costs Rs 766 and rest pages are large size which got copied from market on large photocopier and costs Rs 3100″. We all are aware that Rs 2 is charged per photocopy for A 4 size and for the bigger size photocopy maximum cost cannot be more than Rs 10 per page. This indicates that for rest 45 pages Information seeker had to pay Rs 450 only maximum, but he was asked to pay Rs 3100, plus Rs 766 for photocopying A4 size pages. When the information was received by the information seeker SajadHussainPandit , that was completely misleading and incorrect. Sajad is not unnecessarily harassing the Govtofficials , but he actually wants justice. Pertinent to mention that during the year 2000 the FC office appointed 100 patwaris who were earlier chainmen in Revenue Department attached with Patwaris. Sajad was also one such Chainman. His name was neither shortlisted nor was he informed how the process of selection was done. “I tried to get this information by invoking my right under RTI. I was made to pay such a huge fees inspite of being an un employed person and when I opened the parcel , the information was totally misleading and irrelevant ” said SajadHussain
Case 2 : SDM office Tangmarg :
Another information seeker was made to pay Rs 2000 as Photostat charges by the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Tangmarg.Inspite of paying this exorbitant fees , information seeker was provided irrelevant and misleading information. Information seeker namely Nisar Ahmad Parra who is a resident of village Larkipora , Tehsil KarhamaTangmarghad filed an application under J&K RTI Act 2009 before SDM Tangmargon 19.5.2016. Parra says that SDM office officials had denied to issue Resident of Backward Area (RBA) certificate to her divorced sister who lives with him after she got divorced more than 4 years back. RTI applicant Nisar Ahmad Parra had obtained orders of the Deputy Commissioner Baramullafor issuance of RBA certificate , but he alleges that said order was not implemented by SDMTangmarg. Then he decided to use RTI so as to know why the order was not implemented. In his RTI application information seeker sought information about the action taken by SDM office on DC’s letter and sought list of RBA beneficiary list of Karhama , Kunzer and Tangmarg tehsils of 2014 and 2015. Instead of providing information seeker the list of persons who were given RBA certificates , the SDM office provided him Xerox copies of around 400 RBA certificates which he never asked.
While talking to this author Nisar Ahmad Parra said that he was asked to deposit Rs 2000 as RTI photocopy fees . “I am only seeking list of beneficiaries not photocopies of RBA certificates. Officials forcibly asked me to take 1000 paged information. They thought I would surrender and would not deposit such a huge fees. I paid the fees , but the information provided is misleading” Parra added. He now plans to move to State Information Commission (SIC).
Case 3 : Villager asked to pay Rs 2.56 lakhs :
Recently an RTI case from Poonch landed in State Information Commission (sic) . An information seeker namely Abdul Aziz a resident of SurankotePoonchfiled 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on 20-04-2016, stating that he filed an RTI application before PIO in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Poonch on 30-11-2015, seeking information on seven points related to Land Revenue records. On 13.6.2016 SIC heard the appeal filed by Abdul Aziz. Officials from Revenue department were heard through video conferencing, appellant Abdul Aziz couldnot attend the hearing as he was asked by the Revenue department officials to pay more than 2.56 Lakhs as photocopying fees for getting the requisite information. RTI applicant Abdul Aziz was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,56,550 (Two Lakh Fifty Six Thousand , Five Hundred and Fifty rupees ) as charges for Revenue Extract, as per J&K Land Revenue Act and J&K RTI Act 2009 . The applicant finally submitted in writing before PIO DC office Poonch that he was unable to deposit such a huge fees.
Conclusion :
People like Sajad Ahmad Pandit ,Nisar Ahmad Parra had least knowledge about RTI Act. They could have easily undertaken inspection under section 2 (i) of J&K RTI Act 2009 and during that inspection they would have decided which information / documents they needed to take with them. Had the Govt officials been honest , they would have guided them accordingly , but they actually wanted to avoid them and that is why they asked these people to pay huge fees. Similarly due to lack of knowledge about RTI Act Abdul Aziz did not get information about Revenue department .Had he also asked the PIO that he would undertake inspection of the actual records, may be he would have got some vital information after paying few hundred rupees only. It is urged upon State Information Commission (SIC) to take serious note of these types of cases wherein Govtofficials (PIOs) in order to avoid providing of the information under RTI Act , ask poor information seekers to pay hefty fees. Serious action must be taken against the Govt officials who are involved in such criminal acts.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel