He did it again and in the process created a record of sorts
From the Express Initiatives page, The Indian Express, Pune, Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Remember Shivaji Raut, the school teacher from Satara, who was introduced in these columns in November last year as a prolific user of his right to information, right since the days when the flawed act of 2000 was in force.
He has created a record of sorts. So far he demanded information in 27 cases and received it in 21. The information was denied in two cases, but he is going in appeal.
If anyone feels that the law of the right to know is difficult for a common man to handle, Shivaji's brilliant example is the right answer. If he can be successfully use it, so can everyone else.
Shivaji's initial attempts since mid-2001 under the Act of 2000 were unsuccessful. He sharpened his skill in May 2002 with tips from the Express Initiatives. Since then he hasn't looked back. Replacement of the old Act of 2000 by a refined legislation promulgated under an Ordinance in September 2002 came as a blessing. The penalty clause was a deterrent and the information was generally forthcoming. In couple of cases, when the information was denied, Shivaji went in appeal to the Lokayukta and succeeded in getting a favourable order. That enhanced his prowess. Response from Public Information Officers was prompt.
Interestingly, Shivaji kept on getting information even after the Ordinance lapsed in January 2003. It was only by mid-July, when officers heard of Shri Anna Hazare's threat of fast-unto-death that they realised, the Ordinance wasn't in force. Flow of information was suddenly halted. Yet that was only a short spell. The new Act came in force in August and Shivaji resumed his information seeking campaign with renewed vigour.
A dialogue with him:
Q: What kind of information do you ask for?
A: My questions are related to the system and never personal. Of course, a citizen can demand information on his own personal matters, but it should be for a genuine reason.
Q: Can you give some examples of the information you sought?
A: I have recently received information on how the grants under the European Community Sector Investment Programme were spent in Satara district by the health department of the Zilla Parishad.
I have a list of persons who have been granted licences for firearms in the district during the past five years and those who received licences for sale of liquor.
The outcome is revealing. Among the recipients of the liquor licences in the district are 75 women! Fourteen women have received firearm licences. Practically every MP and MLA has a firearm for him or for for his wife or sons.
I have information on sales tax exemptions to industrial units that have put up windmills under the government scheme for generating wind energy. I have also obtained copies of renewal of leases to owners of huge properties in Mahabaleshwar.
I have now sought details of expenditure on repairs of hand pumps by the Zilla Parishad and the names of units where old pumps are repaired.
A: How do you explain that all questions asked by you are with genuine intention?
Q: Besides being a teacher and a social activist and a free lance journalist as well. I analyse the information received and use this for my articles to highlight the systemic failure.
Take for example, the firearms. I asked for area-wise break-up to find out if this has any remote connection with poaching in the forest in the Koyna valley. I find serious lapses in the renewal of leases in Mahabaleshwar.
Three days ago, I received information from the government auditor in the district information on audit objections in the accounts of four municipal councils in the district - Satara, Mahabaleshwar, Panchgani and Rahimatpur. For the first time such information is now available to a common citizen. It would facilitate transparency in the administration of local bodies. Once they know that someone is watching, they would pull up their socks and behave.
Q: Where have you not succeeded in getting information.
A: My query on departmental enquiries against employees of the revenue department in the district during the last five years was rejected on the spacious excuse that the Act prohibits disclosure of the service record of an employee. Actually, I just wanted plain statistics, not particulars of any specific enquiry. This could have been easily given. I am also not sure if the Act prohibits disclosure of particulars of an enquiry. I am going in appeal. My experience of a second appeal to the Lokayukta when the Ordinance was in force, was very encouraging.
Then I wanted to know details of the permissions granted in Mahabaleshwar for conversion of land for non-agricultural use. I was asked to cite a specific survey number of the land. If I knew the location and survey numbers of such land, why would I use the Act to demand any details?
I asked for no objection certificates (NOCs) granted by the collectorate to constructions in Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani. I was asked to get the information from the respective municipal councils. Actually, I did not seek information on constructions per se. I asked for the NOCs granted by the collectorate.
Then I have not received information on encroachment on municipal lands in Satara town. There isn't just any reply. The Zilla Parishad hasn't given me information on similar encroachments on gram panchayat lands in the district.
Q: So the administration is still reluctant to disclose information…
A: This is true in isolated cases. Yet, by and large, it has been responsive. Probably that was because of my successful appeals to the Lokayukta in the past. Besides, I try to be as precise as possible in my queries and do not allow the bureaucracy to find any loophole and reject my query. The officers seem to be rather scared of the provisions of the Act.
Q: How do you say that?
A: I had sought information on the expenditure incurred under the European Commission Sector Investment Programme from the District Health Officer. Not having received any response from the officer during the stipulated period. I decided to go in appeal. I filed my appeal with the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad at 10.30 a.m. and by 1.30 p.m. the information I sought was delivered at my home!
There is a lighter side too. The other day, I filed my query on undetected murder cases in Satara district. The officer promptly offered to give me all the information, but requested me to remove the ten rupee revenue stamp affixed to the application. If the application is made in a prescribed format and the revenue stamp is affixed, it launches a legal process under the Act and it becomes mandatory for the officer to respond to the query within 14 days or face stringent penalty. The officer obviously wanted to avoid this.
``You will get all the information you want, irrespective of the Act. Can't you trust us?'' he pleaded with me.
Q: Don't you face any hurdle if the public information officers (PIOs) haven't been designated?
A : The district collector of Satara announced names of PIOs all over the district when the Ordinance was in force. In other offices they have not been formally designated. But the Act says that every office must have a PIO. I submit a copy of the Act whenever a doubt is raised. That does the trick. I go in appeal to the senior officer in the hierarchy. No one has shirked the responsibility so far. Anyway, it is necessary that PIOs and appellate authorities have to be identified in the entire administrative machinery. This has not been done so far. The government should realise that its own officers are violating the Act.
Q: Others haven't been as successful as you have. What could be the reason?
A: Be focussed in your queries. Scrupulously follow the provisions of the Act.
Q: Everyone may not have the copy of the Act…
A: Yes, people need to be trained in its use. Veteran social activist G P Pradhan has recently written in Sadhana that though the law of right to know is a potent weapon, it would remain in archives if it is not used extensively used by the people. There has to be a movement to propagate its use. Activists have to be trained in its use first. They will in turn guide the common man in its use. Pradhan also asserts that the weapon must be used for genuine reasons. Otherwise, the movement will fall in disrepute.
I personally feel that more than propagation of the information technology, our country needs a spirited campaign to propagate the literacy of the right to know.
------