Block-level Interactive Workshop on RTI Act 2005 held at Conference Hall  of  Block Office,

 Gaisilat in Baragarh Districtunder the joint aegis of Padampur Sub-divisional

administration and Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam Network, Padampur on 14 Nov.’ 06

As per the instruction of Orissa Information Commission, Bhubaneswar the Sub-Collector Padampur decided to organize a series of Interactive Workshops on RTI Act at the level of each of the 6 Blocks involving the officials, PRI leaders, journalists, lawyers and NGOs with a view to provide the participants with an in-depth operational knowledge about the RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules. Further it was decided that such workshops were to be organized under the joint aegis of Padampur Sub-divisional administration and Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam, Padampur a network of civil society groups working for the empowerment of marginalized sections of society.      

The fourth one in the series of such Workshops was held at Block Resource Centre, Gaisilat on the 14th of November 2006 at around 11 pm and it continued upto 2 pm, followed by mid-day lunch. It was attended by about 100 participants including guests and resource persons. Seated in the dais were Chairman Gaisilat Panchayat Samiti Sri Pranay Kumar Sahu, Vice-Chairperson of Panchayat Samiti Smt. Jayanti Biswal, Sub-divisional Revenue Officer-cum-PIO Padampur Sri P.k.Sarangi (a resource person), BDO Gaisilat Sri Saroj Kumar Guru, Sub-divisional Information and Public Relations Officer-cum-Assistant PIO Padampur Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi and Advisor to Orissa Campaign for Right to Information Sri Chitta Behera (a resource person). Other notable persons present in the Workshop were Sri Fakir Charan Rout Coordinator SMPU Network Padampur and several PRI leaders including Sarpanchs of GPs belonging to Gaisilat Block.

The Progress Assistant-cum-Public Information Officer of Gaisilat Block Sri Ranjit Kumar Sahani who had extended a warm welcome to the resource persons and guests at the time of their arrival, couldn’t however remain present during the proceedings of the workshop due to some unavoidable circumstances.

The proceedings of the Workshop started after it was formally inaugurated by Chairman and Vice-Chairperson Gaisilat Panchayat Samiti by way of lighting the ceremonial candle by them.

Then Sri Sarat Ch. Sethi Sub-divisional Information and Public Relations Officer-cum-Assistant PIO Padampur welcomed the all guests and participants of the workshop. After introducing the guests and resource persons seated on the dais, Sri Sethi called upon the participants, each to introduce himself/herself. The self-introduction of the participants having been over, Sri Sethi delivered a preliminary talk on the objectives of the RTI Act 2005. He said that the RTI Act came into effect on 15 June 2005, the day when President of India signed the RTI Bill that had been passed in both houses of Parliament. But it acquired full force 120 days thereafter i.e. on 12th of Oct 2005 throughout the country including Orissa, except of course the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The RTI Act has 3-fold objectives, namely to bring about transparency in the system of governance, penalising the Government officers for not disclosing information as per the mandate of the Act and above all eradication of corruption at various levels of administration. Then Sri Sethi requested Sri P.k.Sarangi, the resource person, who had received the training from Orissa Suchana Commission to talk in detail on the provisions made under RTI Act 2005.

Sri P.K.Sarangi, SRO-cum-PIO of Padampur Sub-division:

Then Sri P.K.Sarangi, SRO-cum-PIO of Padampur Sub-division gave a detail talk on the provisions made under RTI Act as perceived by him from the recent training programme organized by State Information Commission. He first congratulated the Block administration for having organized the Interactive Workshop on RTI Act involving various sections of the public. Then he said as follow:

“There are in fact thousands of laws prevalent in India. Every person even before he/she is born comes under the regulation by some law or the other and remains so until his/her death. But the RTI Act is a unique law in the sense that unlike the other laws which are just published in the official gazette and then informed to the concerned public authorities for the purpose of enforcement by them, the RTI Act 2005 has a built-in provision, that binds all public authorities to propagate and popularize its provisions among the people in order to enable them to make use of the Act.

            “The RTI Act came into effect on 15th of June 2005 and along with it were instantly enforced certain of its provisions, while the remaining provisions took effect on the expiry of 120 days there-from i.e. 12th of October 2005. The Act applied to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which as such remains outside the purview of the central laws because of its having a separate Constitution of its own as ordained under the Article 370 of Indian Constitution.

            “The Act aims at enhancing transparency and accountability in every activity of the public authorities in both Government and non-Government sectors, and thereby ensuring a corruption-free governance in every field.   

“It is pertinent to explain such basic questions- ‘What is information?’,  Who is entitled to receive it?’ and lastly, ‘Who shall provide the information?’. As regards what is information, it consists of the notings of a file, a logbook, correspondence including emails, contents kept in a floppy or CD ROM or any other electronic medium.

“As regards who are bound by this law to provide information, or in other words, where to apply for information, they are all kinds of public authorities, from Panchayat to Parliament, from SDJM Court to Supreme Court and all offices under the control of Central and State Governments. The Government-controlled corporate bodies like LIC, GIC and Banks are also covered under the Act. The NGOs receiving the Government grant-in-aid are also obligated to provide information under the Act.

“And as regards whom to apply for information, they are the PIOs, who should have been appointed in every office within 100 days of the enforcement of the Act as per its Section 5. The date of commencement of the Act as already mentioned was 12th of June 2005 and that of its complete enforcement 12th of October 05. In Padampur Sub-division, for instance, the Office of Sub-Collector, all Tahsils and all Block Offices are supposed to have PIOs appointed for the purpose. In case of a bigger office, an Assistant PIO may be appointed to facilitate the work of PIO.

“As per the said Section, every office should appoint an Appellate Officer, who would be senior in rank to the PIO and whose duty is to hear the grievance, if any against the PIO. As already announced, at Padampur Tahsil, the Officer-in-charge of Computer Cell shall act as PIO and Head Clerk as APIO, and Tahsildar as the Appellate Officer; at the Office of Sub-Collector the SRO shall act as PIO, SIPRO as APIO and the Sub-Collector as Appellate Officer; at the GP level Executive Officer shall act as PIO and GP Extension Officer sitting in the Block Office shall act as Appellate Officer. Similarly, at Gaisilat Block, the Progress Assistant is the PIO and BDO the Appellate Officer. If the PIO doesn’t respond within 30 days of receipt of an application for information or gives unsatisfactory response, the concerned applicant may first contact the Appellate Officer of the said office for redressal of the grievance. And if the Appellate Officer doesn’t give the decision within 30 days or gives a wrong decision, then Suchana Commission can be straightaway approached by the appellant for hearing of his/her grievance against both PIO and Appellate Officer.

“It is worth remembering here, whereas in routine matters a complaint or grievance against the BDO is, for instance, lodged before the Collector, an appeal to be made against any BDO as an appellate officer under the RTI Act can’t be placed before Collector or RDC or for that matter before any such higher officer posted in the hierarchy of Government organization in the State. The next and final appeal against the appellate officer, whosoever he/she may be, can only be lodged directly before the State Information Commission. As we know, some offices under Padampur Sub-division have not yet appointed their respective PIOs and Appellate Officers in compliance with the Act. They should immediately announce such appointments.

“The Section 4 of the Act says that every public authority should have made a proactive disclosure of 17 categories of information concerning itself through different means including internet within 120 days of the enactment of the RTI law i.e. by 12th October 2005. The proactive disclosures, that every office is obligated to make under the Act, concern its functions, functionaries and their pay and allowances etc. Of particular note among the 17 categories of information is the one that concerns the various schemes handled by an office and beneficiaries of each such scheme and progress including expenditures made in respect of each scheme. Such schemes, for instance, may be Indira Awas Yozana, SGRY or Old-age Pension etc. Even the method and criteria of selection of beneficiaries under each Scheme need to be proactively disclosed for the knowledge of all. It is worth remembering that all these proactive disclosures need to be made by each office irrespective of Official Secrets Act 1923 or any other existing law or code at central or State level. Earlier, an employee of the Government was liable for prosecution under OS Act 1923, which stipulates 3 to 14 years of imprisonment against an act of disclosure of official information. But now, the same employee shall be penalized with a fine upto Rs.25,000/- or disciplinary action or with both for failing to disclose information as per the RTI Act 2005. The proactive disclosures of 17 categories of information by each office need to be disseminated through various mass media like TV and Internet too.  

 “As regards who is entitled to receive information, he or she must be a citizen of India. That is why he/she while applying for information in Form-A has to provide an identification mark of citizenship in the shape of Voter’s card, Passport, BPL card, APL Card, Land Patta or  Pan Card etc. But a person shouldn’t use his/her official designation while applying for information under the Act. The applicant has to pay an application fee of Rs.10/- through treasury challan or cash to the PIO of the concerned office. The PIO is to provide an acknowledgement of the receipt of application and the application fee. A person belonging to a BPL family is exempted from paying the application fee, provided he/she would attach a photocopy of his/her BPL card to the application. The application form has to be filled up correctly in every respect, otherwise it may stand rejected.

“As regards the cost of information to be paid by the applicant, it is Rs.2/- per page of A4 size paper. In case of a bigger-size sheet of paper, the actual cost is to be paid. The cost of information provided through electronic media like Floppy or CD is Rs.50/- against each. The PIO shall intimate in Form-B about how much cost is to be paid by an applicant.

“If the PIO think that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under the Act, then he/she is required to mention the grounds of rejection in Form C (intimation of rejection). The PIO would also mention in the said Form-C the particulars of first appellate authority, before who the applicant can lodge an appeal. As per Section 19(1), the first appeal is to be made in Form-D along with payment of 1st appeal fee of Rs.20/- to be remitted through court fee stamps. And if the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the 1st appellate authority, he/she may prefer a second appeal under section 19(3) within 90 days in Form-E against the said decision before Soochana Commission paying a fee of Rs.25/- to be remitted through court fee stamps.   

“If the Information Commission on hearing the appeal so made, is convinced that the PIO has failed to discharge his/her duty to provide the information in a time-bound manner, they can penalize the errant PIO with a fine of Rs.250/- against each day’s delay upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/- as provided under Section 20(1) of the Act. Moreover, a requested information shall be provided free of cost to the applicant, if there is delay on the part of the PIO in furnishing the same beyond the stipulated period of 30 days.   Further as per Section 20(2), the Commission may order initiation of proceedings for disciplinary action of any sort as provided under the Government Servant Conduct Rules against the said PIO for intentional violation of the RTI Act. And the Act has made it clear that in any appeal proceedings the onus of proof shall lie on the PIO who denied the request for information.

“As regard the grounds of exemption from disclosure under the Act, these are mentioned under Section 8 of the Act. Such grounds are, for instance, sovereignty of the country, commercial confidence and fiduciary relation etc. Again, the Section 9 of the Act bars the disclosure of information relating to copyright. Besides the above grounds of exemption, the Act in its Second Schedule has listed out 18 nos. of security and intelligence agencies of the country, which would remain outside the purview of the Act. They are not bound by this law to provide information to the public. However, it should be remembered that the offices which are represented here in this workshop are not exempted from the purview of the Act either on grounds of Sections 8 and 9 or on the grounds of Second Schedule of the Act. In fact all the local offices are supposed to disclose almost everything to the public as warranted under the Act. However, an application asking absurd questions can’t be responded to, and shall stand rejected. For instance, if an applicant asks, “how many people have lived in the areas under Gaisilat Block since the origin of civilization?”, and “what was the colour and height of each person among them?”, these shall be treated as absurd questions and therefore rejected outright by the concerned PIO. 

“Now we are holding Block level workshops on RTI Act and on completing them, we shall go far holding GP level workshops to spread awareness about the Act among the rural poor at grassroots level. The NGOs are requested to extend their wholehearted cooperation to the administration for making successful such RTI awareness drive to follow soon.”  

Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi, SIPRO-cum-Assistant PIO, Padampur:

On conclusion of the talk by the previous speaker, Sri Sethi added that despite the various exemptions from disclosure provided under the Section 8 of the Act, the said Section at various places gives the power to the PIO to disclose an otherwise exempted piece of information, if such disclosure in the opinion of the PIO would serve a larger public interest. Then Sri Sethi requested Sri Chitta Behera, the next resource person on the subject to speak on the provisions of RTI Act left out from the discussion made so far.     

Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Campaign for Right to Information:

Sri Behera first of all congratulated the joint efforts of Padampur Sub-divisional administration and SMPU Network Padampur for organizing the Interactive Block-level Workshop on RTI Act 2005 involving officials, PRI functionaries and community based organizations active at local level.

Sri Behera then informed that as pr the latest report of Berlin-based Transparency International which conducts annually a global corruption perception index, India stood at 88 out of 159 countries in 2005, whereas it has come down to 70 among 153 countries in 2006. And this is all due to enforcement of the RTI Act a year ago. In view of this, the word patriotism has now received a new connotation. The people who once fought against the British were then called patriots. Now there being no alien rulers, a true patriot is the one who stands for a radical change in the status quo which is based upon official secrecy. From this perspective every RTI activist is the patriot of the day, and every status-quoist is the enemy of the country.     

Speaking on the unique significance of the Act, Sri Behera said that prior to enactment of RTI, there existed no legal scope even for a Government employee to ask for any information from his/her own office, and relating to his/her own service. A Government employee had no power to make a representation before a higher authority, or even before a people’s representative, without taking the permission of his/her immediate boss. Now that the RTI Act is in force, a Government servant too can apply for information, without any fear, before the appropriate authorities about any matter permissible under the Act, and the latter are bound by law to give a time-bound reply to his/her queries. Thus with the enforcement of RTI Act, an office of Government shall henceforth remain transparent not only to the citizens at large, but also to its own officers and employees, - a reality which didn’t exist earlier. But at the same time it is a sad commentary on the manner of implementation of this historic legislation by various public authorities that though the Act was supposed to serve as a weapon in the hands of the poor and marginalized sections of the society to get their numerous grievances relating to the rights and entitlements due to them redressed, the users of the Act have remained confined so far mostly to the Government officials, representing about as much as 75% of them. Whatever training they received from the Government or Information Commission was used by them to get their service related grievances redressed through approach to the quasi-judicial forum like Information Commission. They are yet to make fulfill the mandate of RTI Act to make it reach to poor and marginalized sections of society.

Then Sri Behera observed that since the SRO-cum-PIO Padampur has dealt more or less comprehensively with the provisions of RTI Act and Orissa Rules made there-under, he would only address to those issues which were left out by the previous speakers but deserved to be treated with due importance in a forum like the present one. Further he requested Sri Fakir Charan Rout, Coordinator SMPU Network Padampur to assist him in the matter of a loud reference to the relevant extracts from the provisions of RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules, as and when necessary. Then Sri Behera delivered the following talk:

“The previous speaker has already dealt with the definition of ‘right to information’ as mentioned under Section 2(j) of RTI Act. Such right includes above all the right to inspect a ‘work’. For instance, if the people of a village suspect that a road sanctioned under Panchayat funds is being constructed in a haphazard manner with materials of inferior quality, they can demand inspection of the work site and moreover, if they demand such inspection under Section 4 (vide Explanation) of the Act, the concerned public authority is bound to allow such inspection to be held instantly. And again, unlike the Section 6, which requires a single citizen to apply for information, the Section 4 talks in a plural sense and requires the dissemination of information by each public authority to the members of public. Thus the people of a village can go en masse and demand instant inspection of any information including a work in the presence of the concerned officers of a public authority.       

“The previous speaker told that anybody seeking information is bound to apply in Form-A and may wait upto 30 days for getting the information. But as a matter of fact, the RTI Act provides for another and altogether different mode of accessing official information i.e. instant access to 17 categories of information supposed to be disseminated suo motu by every public authority as mentioned under Section 4 (1b) of the Act. And in fact, the Section 4(2) emphatically says that each public authority should provide these information to the public in such a manner that a citizen won’t feel the need at all for making an application under the Act to get a piece of information. Further the Section 4(4) says that every information is to be disseminated in local language and in a manner easily intelligible and accessible by the common people, the bulk of whom are incidentally illiterate and poor. And if every public authority carries out this mandate of the Act, then not only the public shall easily and instantly get to know what they seek for, but also the burden of overcrowd by the members of public and overload of paper works, in the public offices shall be greatly reduced.

            “Again the RTI Act has been framed in such a way that a citizen who visits an office even for once to seek some instant information under the Section 4 of the Act shouldn’t return empty-handed and disappointed. The Section 5(2) says in addition to the obligatory post of a PIO, every office should appoint one or several Assistant PIOs, and Section 5(4) says that in absence of PIO or APIO in the office at a particular moment, some other officer should act as the authorized officer in their place for entertaining and disposing of requests for information. If the officer so authorized fails to discharge the role of PIO so entrusted, then he/she would be penalized in the same manner as a defaulter PIO would be (Section 5-5). And as regards the duty of PIO, it is not only to receive the applications under Section 6(1) and responding to them under Section 7(1), but also to write the applications for those who are unable to write for some reason or the other [Section 6(1b)] and to enable the sensorily disabled persons even to inspect the concerned files [Section 7(4)]. Again, if a requested information is not available with the PIO, but available with some other office, he/she in stead of rejecting the application altogether or orally directing the requester to approach the other office for the purpose, should write a letter to the concerned office where the information sought is available with intimation to the requester, all within 5 days (Section 6-3). Above all, an additional and important duty of the PIO is to receive the complaints under Section 18 and appeals under Section 19 from the aggrieved citizens and forward the same to the Information Commission or the 1st appellate authority, as the case may be (Section 5-2 and Section 18-1). If the PIO/APIO fails to discharge this sensitive role to accept and forward the complaint or appeal against himself/herself or against his/her office, then an aggrieved citizen can also lodge complaint against the said  PIO/APIO on this account before the Information Commission (Section 18-1).      

            “It is true that the questions of absurd nature can’t be answered by the PIO or any public authority. But before dismissing an application on the ground of absurdity, the PIO or the head of the public authority, as the case may be, should examine whether and if a part of the questions asked by the applicant can be answered. The Section 10 of the Act which deals with the principle of severance enjoins upon the PIO to sever such part of the question as can be answered from the other part which can’t be answered or disclosed on any ground provided under the Act. Supposing that a citizen asked the very question which has already been mentioned by the previous speaker, “how many people have lived in the areas under Gaisilat Block since the origin of civilization and what was the colour and height of each person among them?”. Following the letter and spirit of Section 10, the concerned PIO in stead of rejecting the application, should respond in the following manner: ‘On an examination of your question, it was found that the census of population was first undertaken in our country in 1901, and the population figures of every census held since then is available in our office and is given below. The information relating to the remaining part of your question is not available in this office’.

            “The previous speaker has already dealt with different grounds of exemptions allowed under Section 8(1), on account of which a PIO may reject an application for information. But as a matter of fact, these are not blanket exemptions, and the overarching proviso to this Section says that no information can be denied to a citizen if that is not denied to the Parliament or a State legislature. This should serve as a rider for all the PIOs and heads of public authorities while they dispose of requests for information under the RTI Act. Even the Section 24 which lists out 18 security and intelligence agencies of Centre in Second Schedule of the Act and authorizes each State to notify such agencies working under them says clearly that a citizen can however ask for information pertaining to corruption or human rights violation from these agencies. The Govt of Orissa have notified 5 such agencies (1.The State Special Branch., 2.The Special Intelligence Wing, 3.The Special Operation Groups, 4.The Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department, Crime Branch, 5.The District Intelligence Bureau functioning under the district Superintendent of Police - vide notification No. PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated, the 29th Oct.’ 2005), from whom a citizen has the right to receive information pertaining to corruption or human rights violation. A public authority ought therefore to remember that as per the RTI Act the tax-payer citizen is the sovereign interrogator who can take them to task for any omission or commission in their conduct as public servants.   

“Just like two modes of accessing information, the Act also provides for two modes by which the appeal/complaint of the aggrieved citizen can be lodged before the appellate authorities including the Information Commission. As already mentioned by the previous speaker, the Section 19 provides for a two-stage appeal process,- the first one to be made before the first appellate authority located in the concerned public authority itself (Section 19-1), and second, before the Information Commission (Section 19-3), and as per the existing Orissa RTI Rules, an appellant has to use Form-D and Form-E respectively to make the 1st and 2nd appeals attaching court fee stamps worth Rs.20/- and Rs.25/-. It is a time-consuming and costly process, which the poor citizens can hardly afford. But as per Section 18(1), a Complaint can directly be made before the Commission, for which no formatted application or appeal fees are required. The Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 at Rule 6) mentions 5 points, which should be dealt with in a Complaint under Section 18 to be lodged directly by an aggrieved citizen before the Orissa Information Commission.

“It is of course a fact that the RTI Act 2005 doesn’t provide for a time-limit for disposal of either an appeal under Section 19 or a complaint under Section 18. But the Act vide its Sections 14 and 17 provides for expulsion of the Central and State Information Commissioners on the grounds of misdemeanor or inefficiency, as and where warranted, by the President and Governor respectively. If an appellant or a complainant face an exasperating delay in disposal of his/her appeal or complaint by the respective Commission, then he/she may put forth his/her grievance before the President or Governor, as the case may be, who on receipt of such a grievance may order an enquiry into the same by a Judge of the Supreme Court and if the veracity of the said grievance is proved, the President or Governor, as the case may be, shall order the expulsion of the concerned Commissioner/Commisioners. Thus the Act has empowered the citizens to initiate the move to get the Information Commissioners dismissed, if they don’t act upto the mandate of the RTI Act. You the citizens are therefore the watchdogs and final arbiters of whether the public authorities including the Information Commissions deserve to stay where they are now.”

Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi, SIPRO-cum-Assistant PIO, Padampur:

Following the talk by Sri Behera, Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi observed that if it was a fact that 75% of the users of RTI Act were so far the Government servants, we should take a resolve that by this time of the next year the trend could be reversed, that is, the 75% of the RTI users would be the common people, while the remaining 25% would be the common citizens. Moreover, as rightly pointed out, the various public offices who have not till date appointed PIOs/APIOs or put up display boards in front of their offices, as required under the RTI Act should do the needful immediately.

Question-Answer Session

Q-1 by Sri Dolamani Rohidas: How much fee is to be paid by a BPL person for information under Section 4 of the Act? 

A-1 by SRO: Only print cost or medium cost is to be paid.

Q-2 by Sri Dolamani Rohidas: Even after the time-limit of 120 days for the full enforcement of the Act has elapsed since long, we still find that no hoarding on RTI Act has been put place in front of the offices. Why is it so?

A-2 by SRO- As a matter of fact, the RTI law is being implemented slowly. As you know, only after it rains in western region of Orissa, the floods take place in the coastal  region. But in legal and administrative matters, the opposite phenomenon works; only after something is started in coastal Orissa, it slowly percolates to the western region of the State. I myself have seen, the display boards have not been installed so far in front of State Secretariat or Orissa High Court. So you have to bear with the slow progress in operationalisation of RTI Act in this region. 

Addition by Sri Chitta Behera: You the people deserve to be blamed for such conspicuous omission on the part of public authorities. The Act has given you the right to complain against such omissions before the Information Commision. Have you ever exercise this power? If not, there is no point in raising the complaint in this forum.

Q-3 by Sri Pradyumna Kumar Sahu: If we come to know about a case of corruption in the office or work of a public authority, what should we then do?

A-3 by SRO: You may bring that case of corruption to the notice of the higher authority or to that of the vigilance wing of the State.

Q-4 by Prasanna Sahu: If getting a copy from an office takes months and years now, can RTI Act remedy it?

A-4 by APIO, Padampur: As per the RTI Act, all information are supposed to remain transparent. If an applicant doesn’t receive the reply to his/her request for information within the stipulated period of 30 days, then he/she can make the 1st appeal against such delay, and if still denied of the information sought, can go for second appeal before the Information commission. As you know, the Act has provided for a penalty upto Rs.25,000/- and disciplinary action against the erring PIO.

Q-5 by Sri Ramesh: What arrangements the public authorities should do in compliance with the requirements under Point- XV of Section 4(1b) of RTI Act?  

A-5 by SRO- Every office should at least provide for minimum facilities like seat, drinking water and fan etc. for the members of public visiting the office of a public authority in connection with RTI Act. But, if an office has no such facility for its own staff, how can they provide the same to the members of public?

Q-6 by Sri Ramesh: The local offices here have not kept ready the suo motu information till date for the purpose of inspection by the public, though they should have done it long back as per the RTI Act. Why so?

A-6 by SRO: The suo motu information under the RTI Act has of course been uploaded to the websites of respective offices, which anybody can view and download.

BDO-cum-Appellate Officer, Gaisilat Block Sri Saroj Kumar Guru: 

As is well-known, the year 2005 witnessed the legislation of two unique Acts, RTI Act 2005 and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, which are important tools in the hands of the rural poor for achieving their rights and entitlements. While the NREG Act can provide guaranteed job to the rural poor for a period of minimum 100 days, the RTI Act entitles every citizen of the country to receive all sorts of information from a public office except of course the exempted categories. The ambit of RTI Act is very wide, which covers every aspect of the life and livelihood of the rural poor. He couldn’t be present during the deliberations in the workshop due to some unavoidable pre-occupation. But as he learnt, the Workshop went a long a way in making aware the attending representatives of PRIs and CBOs about RTI Act, for which he was grateful to all.

Address by Sri Pranaya Ku. Sahu, Chairman Gaisilat Block

Sri Sahu expressed his gratitude to the resource persons and participants for having made the Block level workshop on RTI Act a great success. Then he observed as follows:

“This Act if properly implemented shall add to the overall prosperity of the nation, efficiency level of its public servants, and also cleanliness in public life. It is worth recalling here that precisely due to the RTI law, a large number of BPL families of Gaisilat Block who were not served with the subsidized PDS rice for several months on end could get back at least a part of it. In fact, though I am the Chairman of this Block, I was not aware about the power of this new law. I believe, if this law is implemented effectively, it shall bring about transparency at every level of our administration, which is in fact the crying need of the hour.”

Vote of THANKS by SIPRO-cum-APIO Padampur:

Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi on his behalf and on behalf of the organizers extended a vote of thanks to the PRI leaders and resource persons who have spent their valuable time to address the workshop and also to the officials and CBOs for their keen participation and sharing in the deliberations of the workshop. Sri Sethi also expressed his sincere thanks to Sri Fakir Charan Rout, Coordinator SMPU Network Padampur for having offered their unstinted collaboration to the Sub-divisional administration in the matter of organizing Block level Interactive Workshops on RTI Act.   

After the vote of thanks, the workshop came to a formal close. Then at the invitation of the BDO Gaisilat, everybody dispersed for the midday lunch which was kept ready to be served.   

Minutes prepared by: 

Fakir Charan Rout 

Network Coordinator, SMPU

Padampur