Though football is stated to be the State sport of Uttarakhand, protracted irregularities in functioning of the Uttarakhand State football association as alleged by football enthusiasts have continued to hamper the growth of football in Uttarakhand. In the latest case, an applicant approached the All India Football Association seeking information about the USFA president under the Right to Information Act. With the applicant receiving no response, the issue was raised with the Central Information Commission which has directed the AIFF to provide the sought details within a month.
According to managers of Dehradun based football website, dehradunfootball.com, since Ravindra Kishan Gaikwad was elected president of the USFA about two years ago, there were murmurs about him having no connection with the mountain state and about him being a dummy candidate.
As Gaikwad failed to make his presence in any sports meet here in the past two years, the suspicion became stronger. The website representative filed an RTI application on December 22 previous year with the AIFF seeking local address of state football chief along with a copy of the latest office bearers of the federation. “The AIFF ignored the request and asked the applicant to approach the Uttarakhand Football Association for the desired information. The applicant approached the Central Information Commission, complaining about the AIFF not proving sought information.
At the hearing of the application at CIC earlier in August, the CIC questioned the AIFF’s approach for providing vague and incorrect information to the applicant. Making a strong comment on the AIFF’s approach towards the application, the CIC through its order dated August 4, 2016, has termed it a deliberate effort to deprive information to the applicant. The CIC has ordered the All India Football Federation to provide complete and categorical information, issue-wise to the applicant within 30 days.
In his decision, Information Commissioner MA Khan Yusufi states, “the commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than seven month period.
Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 for which it was legislated by the parliament of India.”