RTI Stories

The following stories related to RTI in Chhattisgarh have been posted by the users

Please read the success stories posted by our users:

Submitted by Ramesh Agrawal

RTI exposed major fault by Ministry of Environment & Forests. Awarded Clearance to Jindal's 1000 MW TPP * Rules Overridden Director Dr.S.K.Aggrawal representing the Ministry, admitted before Central Information Commission on 15.02.2007 that “the application seeking Environment Clearance for Jindal's project was received in the Ministry on 27.02.1996 i.e. prior to the amendment dated 10th April, 1997 making public hearing mandatory and no public hearing was held for phase one”Jindal Power Ltd establishing a mega power plant of 1000 MW in district Raigarh of Chhattisgarh. Ministry granted mandatory Environmental Clearance for first phase (500 MW) of 1000 MW project on 24th September, 1997 without conducting ‘Public Hearing' *Ramesh Agrawal a member of Jan Chetana (works on environmental issues) sought information on 23rd July, 2006 regarding Environmental Clearance accorded by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to Jindal's 1000 MW Thermal Power Plant (TPP) at Tamnar District Raigarh of Chhattisgarh. As Ministry did not provide information despite payment of Rs.318/- a complaint lodged with Central Information Commission on 7th January, 07. Chief information Commissioner Mr. Habibullah Wajahat take the matter seriously and ordered Ministry to supply the sought information within 10 days and refund the payment Rs.318/- on 6th November, 06 and also issued show cause notice to impose penalty. Ministry supplied lot of documents but the very vital information regarding Public Hearing was not provided. This was brought to the knowledge of central information commission. On 15th February, 2007 at hearing, to avoid penalty, Ministry submitted vital information that Public Hearing was not held. This is matter of utter importance and investigation how the Ministry bypassed a mandatory process of public hearing and accorded clearance to first phase of 1000 MW power plant. Ramesh Agrawal“Jan Chetana”Satyam Kunj, Naya GanjRaigarh (Chhattisgarh) 496001Mob: 09301011022Email: ramesh.agrawal@gmail.com*PUBLIC HEARINGPublic Hearing is a part of assessment procedure for ensuring participation of local people and stakeholders in various projects. Conducted for in projects involving a large displacement of residents or severe environmental impacts.

Submitted by chandrakant kashyap

I filled an RTI aplication to the General Admnistration Department on 13-02-09.In the application i asked the PIO information about an Official Memorandum sent by Ministry of personnel,public grievances and pension,GOI,New Delhi to all state Government.The Memorandum had clarifications regarding identifying "CREAMY LAYER" among OBCs. Secondly i also asked whether government has issued any directions or order rgarding that memorandum.

On 23 march 2009 i received the some information from the PIO,but it wasn't correct information. So I filled an appeal against it to the first appealate authority. The authority called me to present my objections on April 8,2009 at his office, the PIO was also present. To my great surprise the appealate authority tried to take the side of the PIO. When I told him the this is not the informtion what I asked ,the authrity said that they do not know about the OFFICE MEMORANDUM. He said the department hasn't received such OFFICE MEMORANDUM.I showed him the copy and date and also that it was addressed to all chief Secretaries of All States,then he backtracked and said then either some officials have not read it as it was totally in english.I asked him this can't be the reason for denying me information.Even if such is the case ,why then the PIO sent me some unrelated information instead of telling that the department has no information or the department is searching for the documents.The appellate authority again taking side of PIO said that PIO can't do that as he might get trapped.The appellate authority told me to forget about the OFFICE MEMORANDUM as nothing will result from it. I told him that negligence of some officials has bereft a number of students from admissions and jobs so I must know who is responsible. He said that I wont get anyhing out of this.

Right now I am waiting for his order. If the order is not in my favour, I will approach the Information Commission.

On 20 th April 2009,i received the copy of order of the 1st appelate authority which said that the information i seeked in my RTI application was in form of questionnaire and the RTI act describes right to information as access to any information in form of any document ,sample ....,so the PIO was not required to provide meany other information besides what he has alrady provided.

I disagree with the order of the appelate authority and i am going to file an appeal to the state infrmation commission.The grounds on which i am filing the appeal are:

1)under RTI act 2005 definition of information also includes opinion and advices.And what i asked was opinion of Government of Chhattisgarh on a the official memorandum which was a matter of public importance(concerned with OBCs).Especially when 4 years have paased after the Official Memorandum has been issued.

2)every day hundereds of caste certificates ae issued by the department,how decisions are being made daily when the department has not considered the issue,formed an opinion and passed any document/order.And even if the department has considered the matter and formed some opinion what is the problem with disclosing it.

3)the appellate authority said as information was sought in questionnaire form which is not covered under RTIAct 2005.When RTI Act under Art 8(1)(j) says information which cannot be denied to parliament or state legislature should also be not denied to any person and we know that legilator seeks information in questionnaire form.

4)most importantly the PIO and the Appeallate authority took a narrow view of word "information",public is empowered by the act to know how decisions are being made by the government and what are the bases,one just cannot deny information stating that it is in questionnaire form.Rather the bases of decisions should be proactively disclosed.Instead of covering the matter the Appeallate authority should have judged the matter in the light of its public importance and wider objective and spirit of the RTI Act 2005.

I filled my appeal to the State Information Commission Chhattisgarh on May 24 2009.The state information commissioner Mr.A.K.Vijayvargiya (I.A.S.) ON 5 TH JUNE invited me at the commission where i explained my reservations about the order of First Appealate authority.Being a seasoned administrator and honest person he listened my points and inquired the PIO of the general Administration Dept (C.G.Govt).The earlier PIO was transferred and Anew one had taken his position so was lacking details of the case.The PIO was asked to furnish the information and report on 7th November.On 7th agin at the commission meeting i expressed my utter unsatisfaction over the information provided.As it was not the required information.Hon'ble Commissioner also agreed with me and asked the PIO to let me personally inspect the files at the Department and repot on 18-01-2010.On 16.11.09 I inspected the files.The POI was cooperative and explained all the records.What i discovered that the information i wanted was inside the file notings which were deliberately not provided.Also even PIOs didnt go though the file notings to answer my request.I discovered that the letter about which i required information was received by dept. but after 6 years no decision had been taken on contents of that letter.I reported same to the State information commisioner,who crosschequed with the PIO.On confirmation he directed the Department to speeden the process.He congratulated me for bringing into light an important matter being slept over by the Dept.and marked Rs. 250 for me as compensation for this long drawn process of seeking information and disposed my appeal.I too thanked him for his efforts for keeping the spirit of the RTI Act alive.

1. Officials take RTI request very casually at initial levels.
2. Controversial information is avoided through all means.
3. File notings are still not provided.
4. Appealate authorities as well as other officials act in collusion to save their brothers.
5. Only people who can afford to survive in long drawn process by means of money and time can only gain through RTI Act.
6. There is a set of advantages and disadvantages of having Former Bureucrats as chairman of State Information commissisons.Advantage is that the know many technicalities so can fasten the process of providing information.Second the respect they derive through their experience and knowledge helps to amicably issues between layman applicants and arrogant officials.Disadvantage being the ex bureucrats often show more bias toward their brethens and PIO take leverage out of it.
7. Fate of the RTI act depends on the psychy and strngth of character of the People administrating it.