Inaugurating a two-day workshop on Right To Information-Central Monitoring Mechanism for PIOs, APIOs and FAAs (First Appellate Authorities), District Collector Jagannath Mohanty said, “Though the votaries of RTI Act like Harsh Mander had a noble intention while conceptualising the framework of the law, in the recent past, it is more misused than used.”
He narrated, “During my stint as a Sub-Collector, even I have been blackmailed by an information seeker who sought information under the law. Some people are extorting money by using the law and have made it a means of business. Information can only be rendered only if it exists and information for a period more than twenty years cannot be given. It is a pity that some information seekers, claiming themselves as consumers, are approaching the consumer forums even if remedial measures exist under the RTI Act. In fact, the information seekers are not consumers and approaching consumer forums is not actually warranted.”
He suggested the representative of luminousinfoways, the facilitator of the workshop, to lead the workshop in practical terms rather than being theoretic. Rayagada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRFs) president Pradip Das, however, begged to differ, saying that the applicant under RTI Act is certainly a consumer when he pays prescribed fees to avail information.
Das said that any petitioner cannot be compelled to go empty handed only in appeal after he/she fails to get a satisfactory reply under the RTI Act in the first instance. The aggrieved person, as a consumer, has every right to approach the consumer forum for compensation instead of going in appeal. Citing another ruling by the Supreme Court, he said that the remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to the consumer and it should rather be an optional remedy.
Hence, the complainant could seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant opted for the remedy of arbitration, then it might not be possible to say that he could not subsequently file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. In fact, none could compel a person to file complaint before the appellate authority instead of going in for getting remedy from consumer protection forum.
A luminousinfoways representative made a power point presentation on RTI CMM and its usefulness in daily life for the PIOs as well as public authorities. According to him, the public authorities need to maintain eleven manuals and e-file information in seventeen manuals in Odisha Information portal within 120 days of the promulgation of the Act or else the concerned authorities will be levied a penalty ranging from Rs250 to Rs25,000. Unfortunately, 40 per cent of the departments do not disclose suo-moto, he said.
In Rayagada, most of the departments including the District Collectorate uploaded the information during the year 2010. Even the name of old Collector was not changed. The information fed in the seventeen numbers of manuals is extremely casual. For example Manual-10 where the salary of the employees need to be fed, is blank for the District Collectorate. Similar is the case for many departments. The office of the Odisha Information Commissioner is supposed to track the information on voluntary disclosure by the departments. Alarmingly they are lagging behind making a mockery of the Act.