Block-level Interactive Workshop on RTI Act 2006 held at Bijepur Headquarters, Baragarh District under the joint aegis of Padampur Sub-divisional administration and Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam Network, Padampur on 3rd Nov. 2006
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 second of the proposed series of workshops was held at Bijepur Block Headquarters on 3rd of November 06. The programme started around 10.30 AM in the Block premises with a note of welcome extended to the participants by Sri Hari Mohan Jena, BDO Bijepur. Sri Jena introduced the Sub-divisional Revenue Officer-cum-PIO at Padampur (Sri Prasanna Kumar Sarangi) and the Resource Person Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Right to Information Campaign (www.orissarti.com) supported by Actionaid. In course of his note of welcome, Sri Jena briefed the audiences about the unique significance of RTI Act, which enables now every citizen to access official information, in contradistinction to the decades-long practice of official secrecy which prevailed until the RTI Act came into force. As regards how this Act came about, Sri Jena described that one Mrs.Aruna Roy, who was an IAS Officer of 1967 batch, having been disgusted with the lack of transparency and accountability in the then system of governance had left the Government job and dedicated her career to the noble goal of bringing about an RTI law for the country as a whole. She conducted her campaign in the State of Rajasthan, with a view to expose how even muster rolls of minimum wages were being shielded by the Panchayat executives from the public view under the cover of official secrecy. That sort of campaign had a powerful impact all over the country, and to-day’s RTI Act was the ultimate result of that campaign. Sri Jena hoped that the PRI leaders, media persons, lawyers and teachers besides the officials who have gathered here in today’s workshop should imbibe the lessons on RTI Act to be disseminated in course of the day and to put the same into practice in the days thereafter. Besides SRO and Resource Person, seated in the dais were Smt.Pravasini Gadtia, Chairperson Bijepur Panchayat Samiti and Sri Gokula Ch. Behera, GP Extension Officer-cum-APIO of Bijepur Block.
Following the note of welcome by the BDO Bijepur, Sri P.K.Sarangi, SRO-cum-PIO, Padampur presented an overview of the salient provisions of RTI Act 05 and Orissa RTI Rules made thereunder. First of all, he described the RTI Act as a unique and historic one, to propagate and popularize which even the Government has been making all-out efforts. He himself had attended a training programme on RTI held by the State Government at Bhubaneswar, which was addressed by resource persons from State Information Commission, Government and NGOs. The RTI Act in fact overrides the Official Secrets Act of 1923, which held the unauthorized disclosure of any official information to the public as an offence on the part of a Government servant, even punishable with imprisonment from 3 to 14 years. Speaking on the jurisdiction of the RTI Act, he observed that it applied to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kasmir. The State of J&K has been excepted because it has a Constitution of its own. On the ambit of the Act he further told that it applied to all kinds of public authorities, from Panchayat to Parliament, from SDJM Court to Supreme Court and from the office of RI to Rastrapati Bhavan, except of course the list of 18 nos. of security and intelligence agencies of the Centre as mentioned under the Second Schedule of the Act, and 5 nos. of such agencies notified by the Government of Orissa (vide Notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated 29th Oct 2005, which have been allowed conditional exemption from the purview of the Act. He added that offices like Block, PHC or Tahsil have no official secrets as such to safeguard, since they don’t deal with national security or surveillance matters.
Then Sri Sarangi speaking on the definition of information as provided under the Section 2(f) of the Act observed that it included inter alia one’s right to inspect a file, ask for the sample or model of a structure or to procure the information stored in electronic media like CD, Cassette or Floppy. Dealing with the Section 4 of the Act, Sri Sarangi explained that every public authority should have made a proactive disclosure of 17 nos. 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. As per Section 5, every public authority should have designated necessary number of officers from amongst its staff as PIO, APIO and First Appellate Authority, within 100 days of the commencement of the Act. The proactive disclosures, that every office is obligated to make under the Act, concern its functions, list of employees along with their powers and duties and salaries and allowances drawn by them, the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the employees, various schemes handled by the office and beneficiaries of each scheme and progress including expenditures made in respect of each scheme and so on and so forth. Then quoting the Section 4(2) of the Act, Sri Sarangi added that if our offices can publicise these information adequately and extensively suo motu, then the public won’t resort to making of application under the law to receive the information they need. And as per the Section 4, a citizen can also inspect and take copies of such proactively disclosed information.
The Section 6 allows every citizen of the country to apply for information. To facilitate the implementation of this provision, the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 has prescribed Form-A, which every applicant for information should fill up for applying under the Act along with submission of an application fee of Rs.10/- through treasury challan or cash. Since only the citizens are eligible to apply under the Act, the applicant should provide the photocopy of his/her Voter’s Identity Card, Passport, Ration Card or Driving License etc. as proof of his/her citizenship. A person belonging to a BPL family can be exempted from paying the application fee, provided he/she would attach a photocopy of his/her BPL card to the application. A BPL person is however liable to pay the fees towards the cost of information. On receipt of the application the PIO should inform the applicant in Form-B to pay the required fee towards cost of information within 15 days through treasury challan or cash. As per Section 7, the PIO is duty bound to furnish the requested information within 30 days, and within 48 hours in case the information related to the life or liberty of a person. The PIO for failing to discharge his/her duty to provide the information in a time-bound manner, can be penalized under Section 20(1) of the Act at the rate of Rs.250/- against everyday’s delay upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/- by the Information Commission. And as per Section 20(2) of the Act, disciplinary action of any sort as mentioned in the Government Servant Conduct Rules may be initiated against the PIO for intentional violation of the RTI Act.
If, however, the PIO on receipt of the application for information think that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the grounds covered under Section 8 of the Act, then he/she is required to mention it in Form C (intimation of rejection) while rejecting the application. Such grounds are sovereignty of the country, a case under investigation, privacy of the individual and direction of the court not to disclose a particular information etc. Sri Sarangi added that besides the above grounds of exemption, the Act vide 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.
While rejecting an application quoting any of the prohibitory grounds, the PIO would also mention in the above-said Form C the particulars of first appellate authority, before whom the aggrieved applicant might prefer his/her first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act within 30 days against the decision so taken by him. Besides the applicant in stead of going for the 1st appeal, may prefer a direct complaint to be lodged before the Information Commission as provided under Section 18 of the Act. The 1st appeal shall be disposed of within 30 to 45 days. If the aggrieved appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the 1st appellate authority, then he/she might prefer a second and final appeal within 90 days against the same before the Information Commission, whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties. Then Sri Sarangi finally expressed the hope that both the official and non-official participants of the workshop shall make use of the provisions of RTI Act in a befitting manner, so that the administration can run with transparency and accountability before the people at large.
Following the talk by SRO Sri P.K.Sarangi, the Resource Person of the day Sri Chitta Behera started his deliberation with a warm congratulation to him for he presented a skeletal but holistic view of RTI Act from an operational perspective. Explaining the point further, Sri Behera observed that unlike many Government Officers who tend to present a skewed and one-sided view of the RTI Act just to suit their limited purposes, Sri Sarangi has tried his best to apprise the participants on various nuances of the Act in an unbiased and impartial manner- an example worth emulation by other officers of the Government.
Sri Behera opened his talk with a question posed for everybody present to ponder over- ‘Despite more than a year that has elapsed since the RTI Act came into full force (w.e.f. 12th of October 05), why is it seen that only a very few persons have availed its benefits in our State, while the overwhelming bulk of the people still seem to evince no interest about it? He himself answered the question by saying that most probably the very queer method of application mode which the State Government of Orissa has prescribed and which the State officials and State Information Commission have ever since been harping on in all their RTI-related discourses as the ideal one poses some intractable difficulties for the use by the common people for accessing information under the Act. The greatest stumbling block comes from the very mode of payment of application fee as prescribed under Orissa Rules. He asked the participants about the distance of the remotest village of the Block from the Bijepur Block headquarters, and got to know that it is about 30 to 35 km. Suppose, a person of that village wants to put an application under RTI Act for some information or the other. Firstly, he/she has to fill up a lengthy 11-column application form in Form-A before submitting it, and any column if wrongly filled up shall result in rejection of the application along with forfeiture of the application fee (Vide Form C under Orissa RTI Rules). The next and greater obstacle the applicant would face is as regards how to deposit the application fee of Rs.10/-? The Orissa Rules has provided only two methods through which the application fee can be deposited, such as through cash or treasury challan. The State Rules doesn’t allow him/her to deposit the same through any other mode, such as money order, postal order or cheque. If he/she wants to deposit it through cash, then he/she has to come physically all the way from the concerned village to the Block headquarters for the purpose. Alternatively, to procure a treasury challan of Rs.10/- he/she has to travel upto far-off Sohela, the place where the treasury office is located. And to add to the applicant’s woes, he/she has to remember a lengthy ‘head of account’ in English for the treasury challan (“0070-Other Administrative Services-60-Other Services-101- Receipt from Central Government for Administration of Central Acts and Regulations-9916710-Fees & Fines under Right to Information Act, 2005"), which is just humanly impossible. All this means that just to deposit Rs.10/- as application fee, he/she has to spend a lot of money, time and energy. Will this provision fulfill the noble intention of the law makers, who wanted the RTI Act to serve, most of all, the poor, illiterate and disabled sections of society, who could apply for, submit the fees and receive the desired information sitting at home? And this is precisely the reason why the common people in Orissa are not coming forward yet to exercise RTI.
Again the RTI Act has been framed in such a way that a citizen who visits an office even for once seeking 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- and all this the PIO has to complete within maximum 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).
Sri Behera then drew the attention of the participants to the para-3 of the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Implementation Core Committee Meeting held on 22 Aug. 05 under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Orissa, which, as read out by the PIO Bijepur Block, noted inter alia, “According to the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, every public authority is required to disclose information voluntarily in 17 points by 12.10.2005. Steps should be taken to go for voluntary disclosure of information to the maximum extent so that the strength of application seeking information will be substantially reduced.”
Pointing out certain other salient disclosures to be made under Section 4(1b) of the Act Sri Behera said, one such provision (Item no. xv) related to the facilities to be provided by a public authority for the information seeking citizens such as a reading room or a library or adequate sitting space along with indispensable conveniences like toilet, drinking water and fans etc., where the citizen-visitors can comfortably sit, consult and inspect the records as and when necessary, without causing any disturbance to the routine activities of the concerned office. It ought to be remembered that as per the Explanation to Section 4 of the Act, a citizen or a group of citizens have the right to inspect a public office in regard to any of the 17 items covered under Section 4(1b). Next, the items (vii) and (viii) enjoin upon each public authority to disclose the detail modalities being adopted by them in taking a decision in which public interest is involved, in making disposal of public grievances and moreover in eliciting of public participation in the decision-making process. The Section 4(1 c and d) also provide for obligations of similar nature to be followed by each public authority including those who take quasi-judicial decisions.
Sri Behera then wanted to know, how far the Bijepur Block authorities have implemented various directions given from above for putting the provisions of RTI Act into practice. For instance, the ‘Operational Guidelines’ (vide No.PC-100/2005-29062/IPR dated 28th October 2005) issued by the Chief Secretary Orissa had instructed at para-15 (b) “The following information will be prominently displayed in front of the office of PIO at various levels of different administrative units under control of each Department. – (i ) Name and Designation of PIO, (ii) Name and Designation of Appellate Authority”. Has it been done? asked Sri Behera. Both BDO and PIO admitted that they have not carried it out so far, but would soon comply with it.
Again, the Rule 2(2) of Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 notified on 30th May 2006 in order to facilitate the citizens’ right to inspect the suo motu information covered under Section 4, says, “each public authority shall maintain a Register for day-to-day record of the members of public who visit its office in connection with accessing or inspecting suo motu information proactively disclosed by the said authority under Section 4 of the Act.” Has it been done?, asked Sri Behera? The BDO first acknowledged that they have received this notification, but have not opened the Register yet for visitors under Section 4, though they have since long been maintaining a Register in Form-F for the applicants under Section 6 of the Act.
Coming to the topic of how to price the proactively published information under Section 4, Sri Behera observed that the Section4(4) clearly says that such information should be made available free or at the cost to be prescribed for the purpose under the State or Central Rules. But as a matter of fact, neither the State nor Central Government has prescribed any fee against the same. Sri Behera drew everybody’s attention to the Section 27(2) of the Act which inter alia asked the ‘appropriate Governments’ (Centre or State, as the case may be) to prescribe 4 kinds of fees, such as under, [a] Section 4-4 (fee for suo motu information), [b] Section 6-1 (application fee), and [c ] Section 7-1 (fee towards the cost of information provided in response to an application made under under 6-1 and Section 7-5 (fee towards the cost of electronic medium). But the Central RTI (fees and cost) Rules 2005 has prescribed fees covered only under [b] and [c] of Section 27(2) leaving out the fees chargeable under [a], which stands for the fees chargeable against the suo motu information covered under Section 4-4. Similarly, Orissa RTI Rules 2005 in its Rule 2(1c) has prescribed only 3 of the 4 fees and has omitted the fee chargeable under Section 4-4 from the purview of prescription altogether. And further, like the Rule 2 (c ) of the above mentioned Central Rules, the Orissa Rule 2(2) says that whatever has been omitted from prescription under the State Rules, shall be dealt with as per the provisions made under the parent Act. And since the parent Act provides for free supply of suo motu information in absence of a notification of the same, it should, strictly speaking, be provided free of cost. But considering the difficulties involved in free supply of such information, only the actual cost of the medium or print of a record may be realized from the information seeking public. But never should any PIO charge the cost of suo motu information at the rate specified in Schedule of Costs and Fees appended to the Orissa RTI Rules 2005. Since the qualifying note given in the title of the Schedule says the entire Chart of fees is applicable only for Rules 4 and 7 of the Orissa Rules, which on a closer analysis, are found to be relevant only to Sections 6 and 19 of the Act respectively, and in no way these fees are related to the suo motu information covered under Section 4. And more importantly, the practice of any public authority under any Rule of the Central or State Government can’t go against the letter and spirit of the parent Act.
Sri Behera then observed that, as already mentioned by the previous speaker, the errant PIO can be penalized for his/her acts of omission and commission with a fine upto Rs.25,000/-. Again, as per Section 20(2) of the Act, the Commission too can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO, which might amount to even suspension and dismissal from service.
But the Commission can issue such penal orders only after adjudicating a complaint or an appeal made by an aggrieved citizen. While the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 vide Rule 7 provide inter alia for Form-E, in which an appellant shall lodge his/her 2nd and final appeal before the Commission, the Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 as notifiied on 6th March 2006 in its Rule 6 specify the 5 points [such as (a) the name and address of the complainant; (b)the name and address of the officer or officers against whom complaint is made; (c)the facts relating to complaint and when and where it arose; (d)document, if any, as are necessary to prove the allegation made in the complaint petition and (e) the relief sought for.] which should be dealt with in a Complaint to be made under Section 18(1) of the Act. Moreover, based upon the complaint so made, the Commission may as per Section 19(8b) direct the concerned public authority to compensate for the loss or detriment that a citizen might have suffered in course of his/her seeking the information under the Act. Not only that. In any appeal proceedings, the onus of proof would lie on the PIO who denied the information (vide Sections 19-5 and 20-1).
Dealing with 10 items of exemptions allowed under Section 8(1), Sri Behera added that 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 given to an MP or an MLA. This should serve as the bottom-line consideration 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.
If we look at the statistics of the people in Orissa who have submitted application for getting information or used the forum of Information Commission for redressing their RTI-related grievances so far, it would be found that most of them are continuing or retired Government employees. As a matter of fact, earlier to the enactment of RTI law, there existed no legal scope even for a Government employee to ask for any information from concerned authorities, relating to his own service, such as when shall a lingering departmental proceeding against him/her shall be disposed of, when shall the benefits like pension or provident fund finally reach him/her, why his/her promotion has been held up, when shall his/her pending salaries/allowances be disbursed and the like. Now that the RTI Act is in force, a Government servant too can apply for information, without any fear, before the appropriate authorities, who are bound by law to give a time-bound reply to these queries. With the enforcement of RTI Act, an office of Government shall remain transparent not only to the citizens at large, but also to its own officers and employees, - a possibility which didn’t exist earlier.
Above all, the Information Commission, which has been declared under Section 23 of Act to be the supreme arbiter of every complaint or appeal lodged before them is not above this law. The Sections 14 and 17 of RTI Act provide for expulsion of Information Commissioners placed at Centre or in States on the grounds of inefficiency and misdemeanor. If the people in Orissa think that the State Information Commission is not delivering justice as per the provisions of the Act, they may lodge a complaint with the Governor of the State, who if satisfied with the prima facie of the complaint so made can get it enquired into by a judge of Supreme Court, and if the veracity of the complaint is proved by the enquiry so conducted can expel the concerned Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner of the State from the office forthwith. So it is ultimately the people, who hold the key to the paramount question of whether and how long an inefficient or corrupt Commissioner can be allowed to stay in office in a State or at Centre, as the case may be.
Interaction with participants:
Following the deliberations by the SRO and Resource Person, the house was open for a question-answer session.
Question 1 by Smt. Kalyani Mishra, Member Bargarh Zilla Parishad:
After all said and done, if both PIO and appellate officer in a public authority together refuse to provide the requested information, what a citizen shall do?
Answer by Resource Person:
The aggrieved citizen may directly lodge his/her complaint against both officers before the Information Commission, as required under Section 18(1) of RTI Act and under Rule 6 of Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006.
Question by Sri Kamadev Behera, a local person:
If the PIO while allowing inspection of records to a citizen-applicant commits inordinate delay in bringing the concerned files for inspection, what shall we do?
Answer by SRO
In response to a request for inspection by a citizen, the PIO must have specified the particular time, when the requested inspection can be held. And the PIO while allotting the time, must have been prepared with concerned records to be inspected. Thus there is no question of any intentional delay to be made by the PIO.
Question by Mrs.Sukanti Das, Supervisor ICDS, Bijepur
Who are the PIO and Appellate Authority in the Block?
Answer by Resource Person:
The Proceedings of the Meeting of Core Committee held under chairmanship of Chief Secretary Orissa on 22.8.05 in its para-2 provides a clear guideline as to what is the rank of officers to be appointed as PIO/APIO and first appellate authority in each office functioning under State Government. For instance, an officer other than BDO shall be the PIO of Bijepur Block, while BDO himself shall be the first appellate authority. Besides, an Assistant PIO may be appointed depending upon the workload.
Question by Smt.Bijayini Dalbehera
A Government servant has some pending dues to be received from the Government. He has given representations umpteen times to various authorities in the matter, but so far to no effect. Whether RTI Act can be of any help to him?
Answer by Resource Person:
Yes. He can submit an application in Form-A before the concerned authority enquiring as to what steps have been taken on the representation given earlier. The PIO of the concerned public authority is duty-bound to reply within 30 days informing the applicant on the status of his representations made earlier.
Talk by Sri Fakir Rout, Network Coordinator SMPU, Padampur
After the interaction with the participants came to an end, Sri Fakir Charan Rout, Network Coordinator of Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam (SMPU) Padampur gave a brief talk on what prompted their network to extend collaboration to the Padampur Sub-divisional administration in the matter of organizing the Block-level interactive workshops on RTI, the first of which was already held at Sohela Block on the 26th of Oct 06. He told that SMPU has over the years been campaigning for mitigating the problems and issues created by what they describe as ‘a system’s failure drought’ in Padampur area. The chief objective of their ongoing campaign is to enable the people, especially the marginalized sections to avail the various entitlements admissible to them under different Government schemes. It was soon realized by the network that the newly enforced RTI Act would serve as a powerful tool in the hands of such people to ensure a timely delivery of various entitlements due to them, be it BPL rice, Patta for landless tribal or Indira Awas for a homeless poor from the local administration. That is why, SMPU network has joined hands with the sub-divisional administration at Padampur for popularizing and enforcing RTI Act among both officials and public at large.
Sri Rout then showed the copy of the ‘Template for Information Hand-book under Section 4 of RTI Act’ prepared by GOI which is also currently available on Govt of Orissa’s RTI website. If the said template is scrupulously followed by the public authorities in respect of their proactive disclosures under Section 4 of the Act, then it would be found that there is no information available with a public authority, which can’t be disseminated through Section 4.
Then Sri Rout reminded the Block officials about the need for a bold display of name of PIO and Appellate Authority of the Block in front of the Block office as required under para 15 of Operational Guidelines issued by Chief Secretary Orissa dated 28.10.05. And the BDO promptly agreed to carry out the suggestion without any delay.
Summing-up and Vote of Thanks by BDO, Bijepur:
Sri Hari Mohan Jena, BDO who was chairing the workshop gave a brief concluding talk. He expressed his happiness that the day’s workshop has succeeded in making officials, PRI leaders, media persons and NGOs of the Block aware about the basics of RTI Act and offered his warm thankfulness to all of them for making the workshop a success. The BDO also thanked Sub-divisional Revenue Officer-cum-PIO Padampur, Chairperson Bijepur Block and Resource Person for their valuable presence and deliberations in the one-day Block-level Interactive Workshop on RTI Act. Last but not the least, he expressed his gratitude to the SMPU Network, Padampur for having extended their cooperation and collaboration in the matter of organizing the workshop.
Following the vote of thanks, the workshop came to an end around 2.30 PM and all the participants dispersed for mid-day lunch which was hosted by BDO, Bijepur in the Panchayt Bhavan.
Minutes prepared by:
Fakir Charan Rout
Network Coordinator, SMPU
Padampur, Bargarh District