Erasama, Jagatsinghpur on 10-12 June 2006

A 3-day Training Camp on Right to Information Act 2005 and

Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006, orgd. by Snehabhijan

during 10-12 June 2006 at Inspection Bunglow, Erasama in Jagatsinghpur

A 3-day Training Camp on RTI Act 2005 and Orissa R&R Policy 2006 was organized on 10-12 June 06 at Erasama in Jagatsinghpur district by Snehabhijan, a civil society group based at Erasama, which has been working for the all-round rehabilitation of the persons and families pushed to a state of distress and debilitation owing to the Super Cyclone of October 1999. A total of 34 participants, who were activists hailing from different parts of the Erasama Block stayed in this residential training camp for 3 days. Though the main objective of the Camp was to focus on the understanding of the RTI Act in respect of its operative part, some participants who were working among the villagers likely to be displaced by the proposed POSCO project, wanted an overall idea about the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006 published of late in Orissa Gazette. Under the circumstances, taking the consent of all participants, it was decided to devote the first day of the training camp on discussion on the Orissa R&R Policy to be followed by in-depth treatment of RTI Act in the next two days.

FIRST DAY: 10^th June 2006

At the outset at around 11 AM, the Coordinator Ms.Satyabhama Pradhan Coordinator Snehabhijan extended a note of welcome to all the trainees along with the trainer Mr.Chitta Ranjan Behera. Then the trainer and all the participants, each lighted the ceremonial candle to mark the inauguration of the Camp. Also a chorus was recited by a group of Snehabhijan activists as a part of formal inauguration of the event.

The trainer and participants, each gave their self-introduction along with a brief idea about the present area of work along with experience or knowledge, if any, they had on RTI Act or Orissa R&R Policy.

Then the Objectives of the Camp, which all the participants should cooperate with the trainer to achieve in the given time-schedule were outlined by the trainer as follows:

- Acquiring an overall idea of Orissa R&R Policy 2006;

- Acquiring an operational knowledge of RTI Act 2005 and Orissa RTI Rules, both through a collective reading of the concerned documents and experimental group-visit to nearby public offices to collect information or alternatively to complain before Suchana Commission, as allowable under the Act.

- Acquiring an idea about how various problems including displacement can be addressed to by way of RTI-based intervention, and

- Addressing Memoranda to the concerned authorities on the omissions and commissions found, if any, in the Orissa RTI Rules and Orissa R&R Policy.

Keeping in view the above objectives, the time schedule of the Camp was drawn up as follows:

First day: Discussion on Orissa R&R Policy 2006

Second day : In-depth discussion of the operative provisions of RTI Act and Orissa Rules.

Third day: Experimental group-visit to public offices for collection of information or lodging of complaint before the Suchana Commission.

The following reading materials were provided to the participants:

- Text of the Orissa R&R Policy 2006, and Key Features of the Policy as published by Government of Orissa

- RTI Act 2005 (Oriya translation),

- Orissa RTI Rules 2005 (Oriya translation),

- Orissa amended RTI Rules 2006 (English),

- Orissa RTI (Appeal) Rules 2006 (English).

Then speaking about the methodology of the training sessions, the trainer mentioned that the deliberations should follow a conversational mode i.e. anybody can interrupt the trainer at any point of time in course of the deliberations for seeking any clarification or elaboration from him on any word or concept mentioned by the trainer, and reversely, the trainer can at any point of time randomly pick up any trainee to explain in his or her own language the meaning or interpretation of a word or concept just discussed. All the trainees agreed to follow this methodology all through the camp proceedings.

It was further decided that besides the lunch-break and tea breaks in between the sessions, recreative games and songs shall be played by the trainees during the breaks in order to dispel the feeling of boredom that may grip the trainees out of the prolonged mental exercises over the complex matters on laws and policies.

Discussion on Orissa R&R Policy:

Initiating the discussion the trainer said that the recently notified Orissa Policy on R and R has been framed in such a complex language and round-about style that a lay person can’t understand its provisions by way of a superficial reading, and it therefore needed to be critically analysed and deconstructed so as to lay bare its hidden agenda. He further advised that in stead of making a clause-wise analysis of the entire text of the Policy that contained as many as 22 Sections, we should take up for discussion a smaller document called ‘Orissa R&R Policy 2006- Key Features’ which has been brought out by Government of Orissa in Revenue Department for propaganda purposes.

Then the Preamble of the Orissa R&R Policy was read out and discussed. The Preamble spoke of so many high-sounding propositions that the Policy was allegedly based upon, such as:

( a) The Policy has learnt from the past policies of the Government along with best practices of other States; (b) It has emerged from the Government’s ‘genuine spirit of learning and introspection’; (c ) The Policy has resulted from a wide-ranging consultation with civil society groups, scholars and specialists on the subject; and (d) The Policy provides for a clearer modality for implementing the R&R provisions from the perspective of sustainable development. However, one shouldn’t take these glittering expressions of the Preamble at their face value, but has to read the Policy between the lines in order to ascertain whether the actual provisions made in the Policy do actually correspond to them.

Then some alluring promises contained in the Policy were taken up for analysis one by one. Considering that the proposed POSCO project falls under the Type-A Industrial Project as defined under the Policy, the participants should specifically know what particular R&R benefits a displaced family is entitled to under the Industrial Project. Under the Para 2(f) of the Policy, an expanded definition of the family has been given, i.e. if an adult son, unmarried sister of above 30 years, a widow or a divorcee, a minor orphan or a handicapped person would be eating from the same kitchen, each of whom shall be separately entitled to R&R benefits. So far, so good. But under Para 8(I), it has been categorically said that in respect of providing employment or one-time cash assistance in lieu of employment, not each of these separate categories, but only one member of the ‘original family’ shall be considered eligible to receive it. Thus the so-called expanded definition of family has only a cosmetic value. Then under Para 2(d), the term ‘Displaced Family’ has been defined to mean only that family which has lost his/her homestead land. Thus a family losing the whole of his/her agricultural land or occupation shall not be considered a displaced family and therefore receive any R&R benefits. While the National Policy on R&R -2003 and all similar policy documents talk of both ‘displaced family’ and ‘affected family’ for the purpose of awarding R&R benefits, it was strange enough that Orissa Policy only talked of ‘displaced family’ and that too in a highly skewed manner so as to deprive all other categories of affected people who lose everything except homestead from the purview of R&R entitlements. Next, while the word ‘compensation’ has been defined under Para 2(b) as having the same meaning as assigned to it under LA Act 1894, the Para 6 says that the ‘compensation’ shall be paid as per the procedure to be prescribed by the Government. As per the Section 23 of LA Act 1894, a displaced family can put up his claim for compensation showing 5 more grounds of loss incurred by him due to acquisition of his land besides his routine entitlement to market value of the acquired land and an ex-gratia amounting to a certain percentage of the total compensation payable. Thus Para 6 aims at taking away whatever is presently permissible under LA Act 1894. A similar exercise in self-contradiction is noticed in case of Para7 (ii) vis-à-vis Para 7 (v); the former says that there shall be no physical displacement before the actual resettlement is done, while the latter says that the provisions of rehabilitation shall be claimed only after the physical vacation of the land to be acquired. The Policy in the name of removing the ambiguity around the ‘cut-off date’ has defined it as the date on which the notice for acquisition would be issued. It meant that no displacee can claim any compensation on the ground of increase in the market price of the land acquired from him in the post-acquisition period. In fact, the LA Act had provided a scope to the land-holder for advancing his claim for compensation against the hike in the price of the same land in a subsequent period. The new Orissa Policy has taken away altogether this scope by giving a rigid definition of ‘cut-off date’. The Policy has paved the way for the State Government to escape its direct responsibility of providing R&R benefits to the displaced by shifting it to the project authorities. The most of such project authorities being foreign and private companies, it is not clear as to how the displaced families can achieve their dues from these industrial houses or alternatively what should they do if not compensated properly or timely by them. Nowhere in the Policy is there a provision to inform the people, prior to issue of notice for land acquisition, about the very project for which the land would be required. Similarly, the Policy has no provision to inform the people about the rate at which the Government would sell the land to the land requiring private companies, once the land is acquired by the Government from the people at a throw-away price. Thus the Policy seeks to legitimize the role of the Government as that of a middleman engaged in the lucrative business of land speculation. Then, in a bid to placate the landless or homesteadless encroachers, the Policy at Para 9 is entitled as ‘Benefit to landless and homestead-less encroachers common to all categories’, but the actual provision is hedged in by so many conditions and qualifications that an encroacher family may not be able to fulfill them at all, and on top of all, the provision says that an encroacher family can claim R & R benefits, only when his encroachment is not ‘objectionable’. And as everybody knows, there is nothing called unobjectionable encroachment. It was further revealed that the new Policy has no provision for an independent appellate authority to dispose of the grievances relating to land acquisition and displacement matters. Unlike the L A Act which provided for the power of arbitration of all disputes to lie with the Court, the new Policy, ironically enough, entrusts this power of arbitration to the Revenue Department (vide Para 22), the very agency which would acquire the land and against whom the grievances would be made. Besides at various stages of the land acquisition and R&R process, the Revenue Officers, such as Collector, RDC and Member Board of Revenue have been given decisive power and authority in respect of determining the land to be acquired, and compensation and other benefits to be delivered, leaving thus no room for any neutral, independent body to play its due role in such crucial matters.

The Resource Person pointed out that due to constraint of time, each and every clause of the new Policy couldn’t be taken up for discussion, but from an overall reading of its text it was clear that the whole of the new R&R Policy of Orissa suffers from contradictions and ambiguities on one hand, and favours in a biased manner the land acquiring Revenue Department and land requiring private companies on the other. He suggested, another exclusive consultation may be held in near future to undertake an in-depth analysis of the Orissa R&R Policy 2006. Further he advised that a Memorandum, to start with, should be addressed to Governor Orissa pointing out the salient loopholes of the new R&R Policy, based upon the discussion already made. The trainees agreed to the proposal so made and it was decided to draw up a Memorandum on Orissa R & R Policy 2006 addressed to Governor Orissa from the POSCO affected people of Jagatsinghpur district.

The work of the first day came to a close at around 7 PM, and the participants retired to their respective resting places.

SECOND DAY: 11^th June 2006

The business of the 2^nd day started at around 10 AM, with an inspirational chorus presented by a group of trainees. Then the resource person helped the trainees have a resume of the 1^st day’s discussion on Orissa R& R Policy. Some questions raised by the participants on the new Policy were clarified through a close re-reading of the relevant provisions of the Policy. It was further told that the participants while they would be approaching various offices in connection with right to information, might ask questions relating to market rate of land and other such technical matters in order to get a first-hand knowledge about the nitty-gritty of land deals, which is required for a comprehensive understanding of any R&R Policy.

Then the discussion started on Right to Information Act 2005 to be read alongwith Orissa RTI Rules 2005, Amended Rules 2006 and Appeal Rules 2006. The resource person made it clear that unless a practical exercise is conducted by the trainees for putting their knowledge to test by way of visiting various offices and seeking information from them under the Act, they can’t grasp the Act properly and effectively. It is therefore obligatory that all the trainees being divided into a few groups would visit some selected offices on the last day of the training programme for the said purpose. So each trainee is required to learn the lessons to be imparted in course of the training sessions in such a way that they feel enabled to approach any office for their right to information with full self-confidence. Alternatively, if the information sought is denied to him/her, he/she can lodge a complaint or appeal before the appropriate authority under the Act.

Then the resource person proceeded to provide some preliminary ideas about the RTI Act 2005.

Two modes of accessing information: Though most people are talking about the application mode as mentioned under Section 6 for getting information under the RTI Act, there is in fact a more important and easier mode of accessing information by a common citizen, which is available under Section 4 of the Act itself. Precisely speaking, the Section 4 obligates a public authority to disseminate suo motu various kinds of information held by it, which a citizen can inspect and access suo instantly, without having to submit any application or fees. But the Section 6 requires that an information seeker ought to apply in writing along with payment of fees and may have to wait for 30 days to receive a reply to the said application. Then also he may be refused the information sought by him, and if aggrieved by such refusal he may have to lodge an appeal before the first appellate authority or a complaint before the Information Commission. The Information Commission, if convinced of the genuineness of the applicant’s request for information, may direct the concerned PIO ( Public Information Officer) or the Public Authority as the case may be, to furnish the information sought or/and penalize the PIO for his act of violating the provisions of the Act. The entire process, starting from submission of the application under Section 6 upto the disposal of a complaint or an appeal by the Information Commission under Sections 18 and 19 is a time-consuming, complex and expensive process.

But the RTI Act itself provides an alternative method of accessing information by a citizen, which virtually requires no money, time or hassle on his part. As already mentioned, this method is provided under the Section 4 of the Act. In fact, the RTI Act 2005 itself says under Section 4(2) that each public authority should provide as much information as possible through the proactive disclosures as mentioned under Section 4 that the citizens needn’t have to take recourse to other provisions of this Act to get the desired information.

As activists working for the poor and marginalized sections of population, the trainees should exert themselves to master the technique of inspecting and accessing information instantly and without having to submit any application or fees whatsoever as provided under Section 4.

Before elaborating on the provisions made under Section 4, the resource person wanted the trainees to get clarified about certain basic concepts as defined under the Section 2 of the Act.

First of all, the word ‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) was explained. It is not limited to paper-based documents only, but includes samples, models, emails, logbooks, advices, contracts and electronic media too. At this stage, a question was raised, ‘Whether information about a private body can be accessed by a person?’ It was explained, yes, it could be accessed but not directly as in the case of a government body. The expression occurring in the last part of the definition of ‘information’ mentions ‘information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force’, means that one has to apply for such kind of information, not directly to the private body itself, but to that governmental body which funds or controls in any manner the private body concerned.

The next term that was taken up for explanation was ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h). From a close reading of this definition, it appeared that every organization, be it a part of the legislative, executive or judicial wing of the State or belonging to a local self-government body such as Gram Panchayat or Municipality is a public authority and therefore bound to disclose information held by them as per the provisions of the Act. Even a private body, be it an NGO, SHG, Cooperative or Company etc. is considered to be a public authority and hence liable to disclose information under the Act, though the manner of seeking information from a private body is not direct, but indirect i.e. through that public authority (government agency) which controls or regulates it. Thus there is no agency, public or private which lies outside the purview of RTI Act.

Then the definition of ‘right to information’ as mentioned under Section 2(j) was explained. It meant one’s right to inspect not only documents, but also worksites, to take notes or extracts or certified copies of the documents and samples of materials, and to obtain information contained in any medium such as floppy, CD, video cassette or any electronic device.

After these preliminaries were discussed, the Section 4 was read out in detail. The Section 4(1a) made it binding on each public authority to maintain all its records in a properly catalogued and indexed manner, and also put them as far as possible on internet so that any citizen sitting in any corner of the country can access information from the public authority located far away easily and quickly.

The Section 4(1b), which is so to say, the heart and soul of the RTI Act was then taken up for an elaborate discussion. Its opening line obligates every public authority shall publish 17 categories of information as mentioned there-under ‘within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act’. The question arose, what is exactly meant by 120 days from the enactment of the Act? A corollary to this question was, what is the date of the enactment of the Act and when does fall the 120^th day? To find out answer to these all-too-technical questions, the Section 1(3) was first read out. It said that 9 provisions came into force at once i.e. on the date of enactment itself and the remaining provisions would acquire force on the 120^th day of the enactment. Then to find out the date of enactment, the opening line of the Act was read out, which said inter alia that the Act received the assent of President on 15^th of June 2005. And as per the Indian Constitution the date of Presidential assent is the date of enactment of a law. It means that the date of enactment of RTI Act was 15^th June 05, and it came into full force on 120^th day i.e. 12^th October 05.

Thus as per the first mandate of Section 4(1b) every public authority should have published all its records relating to 17 categories of information as mentioned there-under by 12^th of October 05, so that any citizen can inspect or access them with effect from 13^th of October 2005. Every activist working for the RTI Act should therefore strive to ascertain first of all if a public authority which he or she seeks to approach for getting information has complied or not with this basic mandate of the Act.

Then the 17 categories of information mentioned under Section 4(1b) were read out one by one and explained. The Resource Person wanted to know from the participants, if any sort of information which the common citizens require for their life and livelihood stood outside the list of 17 categories. But everybody felt that any information which the people might want in their day-to-day life is amply covered under one or more of the 17 categories. For instance, if a BPL person wanted to know why he was not awarded with Indira Awas, whereas an APL person from his village was, he can ask the concerned office for its reasons or inspect the concerned files, and the office concerned is bound to comply with his request as required under item (xii) of Section 4(1b) [the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes]. Thus there is hardly any need to go beyond Section 4 (1b) to seek out a piece of information from any public office.

Then the Explanation to Section 4 was read, in which it has been mentioned that the public authorities should disclose the information held by them through all possible means including encouragement to the members of public to inspect their offices.

As regards the cost of information to be provided suo motu by the public authorities under Section 4, the Section 4(4) mentions that the said information shall be provided free of cost or at the cost of print or medium to be prescribed by the appropriate Government. As a matter of fact, neither the Central Government nor the State Government have prescribed any fee payable under Section 4(4), though the Section 27(2) of the Act had clearly suggested that an appropriate Government may prescribe inter alia a fee for the purpose. On a close scrutiny, it will be found that the Schedules of fees as announced by the Centre or State Government of Orissa have covered other kinds of fees, but not the fee under Section 4(4). And the Rules made by both Centre and State Government of Orissa [vide Rule 2(c ) and Rule 2(2) respectively] say categorically that what has been omitted from the body of Rules so made, shall carry the same meaning as assigned to them under the RTI Act. Thus, by implication, both Central and State Rules provide for the dissemination of information covered under Section 4 free of cost to the public. If any officer claims any fee against the inspection or documents under Section 4, he or she shall be violating both Act and concerned Rules.

Two modes of appeal: Like two modes of accessing information, there are two modes of appeal to be made before the concerned appellate authorities by a citizen, if information is denied to him or false, misleading or incomplete information is provided. One is the appeal under Section 19, and the other is the complaint under Section 18 of RTI Act.

As per Section 19, there are two stages in the appeal process. As per Section 19(1), if the applicant doesn’t receive a decision within the specified time or is aggrieved by a decision of the PIO, then he/she can make a first appeal within thirty days against the PIO before the Officer who is senior in rank to PIO and designated as the first appellate authority. As per Section 19(6), the 1^st appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal so made within 30 to 45 days of the receipt of the said appeal. Then as per the Section 19(3), if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the 1^st appellate authority, then he/she can prefer a second appeal against the decision of the 1^st appeal before the Central or State Information Commission, as the case be, within 90 days of the receipt of the decision under the 1^st appeal. But there is of course no time-limit specified, within which the 2^nd appeal shall be disposed of. As regards the procedure of filing and disposal of appeals made under Section 19, both Central and Orissa Government have brought out their respective rules. While the Central Rules have prescribed no format or fee, required for making these appeals, the Orissa RTI Rules have prescribed Form–D and Form-E and Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- ( revised scale) as appeal fee, for 1^st appeal and 2^nd appeal respectively. Thus the mode of appeal as made provided under Section 19 is time-consuming and involves expenditure of some money as well.

But in contrast, the complaint under Section 18 can reach to the highest appellate authority i.e. Information Commission directly, i.e. without having to pass through the intermediate stage of 1^st appeal. Neither Central nor State Rules of Orissa has prescribed any format or fee, required to lodge a complaint under Section 18. However, the Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 has mentioned a separate provision for lodging a complaint under Section 18 (vide Para 6). As per the said provision, every complaint under Section 18(1) should contain 5 items of information, such as name and address of the complainant, the officer/officers against whom the complaint is made, the facts relating to the complaint including when and where it occurred, documents, if any to prove the facts mentioned in the complaint and relief sought by the complainant. The said Para also mentions that a complaint may be delivered in person or through ‘registered post with AD’ to the Registrar of the Commission, and no complaint can be rejected without giving the complainant an opportunity to be heard.

As a matter of fact, a complaint under Section 18 can be made on many more grounds than the grounds around which an appeal under Section 19 is made. As the Section 18(1) reads, a complaint can be made under the following circumstances:

a) If no PIO or Assistant PIO has been appointed;

b) If the Assistant PIO has refused to accept the application or appeal/complaint for forwarding the same to the PIO, 1^st appellate authority or Information Commission as the case may be;

c) If a person has been refused access to any information;

d) If a person has not received any response to his/her request for information within the specified time-limit;

e) If an unreasonable amount of fees has been charged from a person seeking information;

f) If incomplete, misleading or false information is provided to an applicant; and

g) Any other ground relating to one’s request for information or obtaining access to information under the Act.

It was further explained that as per the Section 5(2) and Section 18(1) of the Act, the job of writing an appeal or a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved applicant is that of the Assistant PIO appointed in every public office. The applicant, if he/she wants to lodge an appeal/complaint against the concerned office or officers, should first of all approach the APIO or PIO or even the head of that office to write it on his/her behalf. And if they refuse to write it under this or that plea, such refusal can be stated as an additional ground of appeal/complaint as mentioned under Section 18(1) of the Act.

The penalty provisions as mentioned under Section 20 of the Act shall equally apply in case of a complaint under Section 18 or an appeal under Section 19. The Section 20(1) says that a PIO can be fined at the rate of Rs.250/- against each day’s delay upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/-, while Section 20(2) provides for disciplinary action (dismissal, suspension, demotion and transfer etc.) against a PIO who persistently defaults in his duties towards the information seekers.

Besides the penalty provisions against the defaulter PIO, there is also a provision for compensation to be paid to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered, and such compensation shall be paid by the defaulter public authority concerned. It is therefore advisable that a complainant should specify the types of compensation in cash or kind, that he or she is entitled. Moreover, the complainant should also specify the kinds of punishment that deserve to be meted out to the officer/officers who have unreasonably denied the information sought.

The applicant/appellant/complainant should bear no fear or apprehension about any harm to his/her interests resulting from such act of protest, since both Section 19(5) and Section 20(1) provide that in any appeal proceedings, the burden of proof would lie on the PIO who denied the information, not on the appellant/complainant. In fact, both Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2005 and Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 provide that an appellant/complainant shall be intimated about the date of hearing at least 7 clear days in advance ( vide Rule 7 and Rule 9 respectively), but he/she may opt not to be present during the said hearing. Again, he/she may send any person as his/her authorized representative to attend the hearing on his behalf, and the said representative may not be a legal practitioner. But the concerned PIO or the officer against whom the complaint/appeal has been made can’t take the liberty of absenting himself from the hearings. Again, the Orissa Appeal Procedure Rules provide some beneficial provisions for the appellant/complainant. Its Rule 3(3) provides that if the Registrar of the Commission finds an appeal containing some defects of formal nature, then he can get those rectified in the presence of the appellant himself. If the defects are other than formal in nature, then the Registrar may allow sometime as he deems proper to the appellant to get those defects removed. And if the appellant fails to rectify those defects in the given time, then as per Rule 3(4), the Registrar shall put forth the matter before the Commission for the orders by the latter. Moreover, as per the proviso to Rule 6, no complaint under Section 18(1) can be dismissed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

After the above provisions relating to complaint/appeal were discussed in detail, the Resource Person observed that at the current stage when the RTI Act is not yet put into full motion, the social activists who want such a progressive Act to be operationalised in real sense of the term, should lodge a prompt complaint under Section 18(1) before the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be, as and when they notice any serious deviation from the norms of the Act and then only the officers who are otherwise loath about implementing the Act in their respective spheres can be compelled to act with propriety as warranted under the Act. And it should be remembered that lodging a complaint as and when necessary is as important as making a request for information.

After the trainees were made aware about how to inspect and seek information under Section 4 and how to make a complaint under Section 18(1) in accordance with the Central and State Rules, they were divided into 5 Groups. On the basis of the preferences given by each group, it was given the task of visiting a few offices on an experimental basis for putting to test their newly acquired knowledge on seeking information and lodging complaint under the Act. The offices the groups were supposed to visit included both Central and State Govt offices. The Group-wise list of offices was as follows:

GROUP- 1: Police Station, Electricity Office (State Govt) and Post Office (Central)

GROUP- 2: Tahasil Office, Sub-Register Office (State), & State Bank of India (Central)

GROUP- 3: Erasama Block and Medical (State)

GROUP- 4: Veterinary Office (State) and United Bank of India ( Central)

GROUP- 5: PHED and Agriculture ( State)

Then the groups were asked to sit separately, each to decide the questions around which they shall seek the information from the concerned offices under Section 4 of the Act.

The questions so formulated by each group were discussed in a plenary session, and were rewritten as necessary on the advice of the Resource Person.

Before the day’s programme came to a close, the Groups were told each to rehearse among its members on how to conduct a step-by-step conversation with the concerned officers while asking for information or making a complaint under the Act.

Thus came to a close the business of the 2^nd day of the 3-day Training Programme on RTI at Erasama.

THIRD (Final) DAY: 12^th July 2006

All the 5 Groups left for the respective offices as entrusted. They returned at around 1.30 PM , took lunch and re-assembled in the training venue at around 3 PM for the final session of the training programme.

At first, each group shared its experience with all the members present in the plenary. After the presentation so made by each group, other members were free to ask questions to be replied by the members of the presenting group.

The Group-wise findings were as follows:

Group-1 : First they had been to the Police Station to seek information on the status of cases on atrocities against women (Rape and Dowry torture) as registered during 2005 and 2006. The concerned Police Officer behaved cordially and provided the data as required.

Then they visited the Post Office to seek information on details of the year-wise RD and SB Accounts opened at Erasama Post Office during the years 2003-4 to 2005-6. The Post Master provided the aggregates but refused to part with the detail data and further said that his office has not received any instruction on RTI. The group felt that a Complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act should be addressed to the Central Information Commission on the ground of incomplete information given by the concerned Post Office.

Then the Group-1 visited the Electricity Office but found no body to be present there to talk to on RTI except the lone peon. The Group felt that a Complaint under Section 18(1) needed to be addressed to the State Information Commission on the ground of violation of Sections 4 and 5(1) of the Act by the said office.

Group-2: Fist they visited the Office of Tahsildar located at Kujanga. The Tahsildar behaved with the group well at first, but when he heard about the RTI connection from the group, he became angry. But as the members of the group insisted on getting the information sought i.e. the acreage of government land available under Polang GP, the Tahsildar referred them to an RI to provide the said information. The RI gave the information verbally. Neither the Group had insisted on getting the concerned information in writing.

Then the group visited State Bank of India located at Bhitar Andhari to ask for the information on amount of deposits and profits registered by the Bank during 2005-06. The Branch Manager welcomed the group and showed the required data for inspection by the group. Additionally, the BM offered a Diary for 2006 published by the Bank, that contained a gist of various schemes being operated by the Bank for the public benefit.

The group also visited the Office of Sub-Register at Kujanga to seek information on how the valuation of different types of land was being made by the said office. The Sub-Register couldn’t be available for giving the information wanted. But a clerk of the office provided verbally the data so wanted, and the group noted down the same.

Group-3: They first visited the Block Office to seek some information on the activities of the Block. But at the moment, none of the concerned officers, BDO, ABDO, SEO, GPEO or PIO was present to give any information wanted by the Group. The group was told that these officers had been to the office of DRDA to attend a meeting being held there. Then the group wrote a complaint addressed to the BDO Erasama Block and got a copy signed by a clerk of the Block office.

The Group then visited the office of Public Health Centre to seek some health related information. But the Medical Officer was absent at that time. It was told to the Group that the MO had gone to the office of CDMO at Jagatsinghpur to attend a meeting being held there, and in his absence no information could be given. The Group then wrote a complaint addressed to the Medical Officer-in-Charge, UG PHC Erasama about the non-availability of any information under RTI Act, and got a copy of it signed by the Head Clerk of the office.

Group-4: The Group visited the office of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Erasama to seek information on insurance, list of medicines and staff position. The VAS welcomed the group and talked at length about the activities of his office. He provided all the information wanted by the group, some in the form of published brochures, some others in the form of printed sheets and still some others in the form of hand-written scripts. The group thanked the VAS for his cooperation in providing the information sought.

Then the Group visited the Office of UBI to seek some information related to the Erasama Branch of UBI. But the officers present there told the group that they didn’t know what was RTI and therefore refused to part with any information.

Group-5: The Group first visited the office of PHED (Public Health Engineering Division) to seek some information related to water supply. But no officer was present then in the said office. The clerk present there said that he didn’t know anything about RTI, but gave the phone number of the officer. The group contacted the officer on phone, who told that he would provide the information only after his return to the office, but not over the phone.

The Group then visited the Office of Agriculture Division Erasama to seek information on supply of seeds to the villages under different schemes of the Government. The Junior Agriculture Officer was absent then. The VLW (Village Level Worker) who was present there informed the group that he didn’t know who was PIO and how to give information under RTI Act. The Group decided and wrote a complaint addressed to Officer-in-charge of Agriculture Division Erasama mentioning about the absence of any arrangement for giving information under RTI.

The Group also visited the Office of Horticulture, Erasama to seek information on different plantation programmes undertaken by the office. The Field Officer Sri Sisir Behera who was present then agreed to provide the required data. He dictated the data and the members of the group wrote down the same in a two-page note.

Following the presentation by the groups and the discussions thereon, the Resource Person advised that the concerned groups should send their complaints under Section 18(1) to the Central and State Information Commission as the case may be, at the earliest as per the address mentioned below:

- Central Information Commission, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-67

- Orissa State Information Commission, State Guest House, Bhubaneswar

Then the Resource Person told that whatever could be learnt within 3 days constituted even less than 10% of the total body of knowledge on RTI Act. But this was enough to start with. The activists can however carry forward the RTI campaign with the help of the newly acquired, practical skill to use Sections 4 and 18, which in fact formed the core area of the Act. Then he invited the opinion of the trainees on the evaluation of the training programme itself along with suggestions for an Action Plan for the future. The opinions expressed by the trainees could be summarized as follows:

- Time was too short to cover two critical topics in 3 days, since each topic was vast enough in scope and importance.

- More in-depth training on the use of RTI is required.

- A Leaflet should be published to popularize Sections 4 and 18 of the Act among the common people.

- More of experimental group-visits to offices for seeking information under RTI Act are required.

- The venue of the training should have been located in a far-away interior area so as to avoid diversion of the trainees during the training sessions.

As told earlier to the participants, a darft-Memorandum on Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006 addressed to Governor was read out and it was unanimously passed by the house. The Resource Person was requested to revise and expand it subsequently if necessary.

Then a vote of thanks was offered to the resource person and trainees. With the Hindi rendering of chorus ‘We shall overcome’ sung by all the participants, the training programme came to a close at around 5.30 pm on 12^th of June 2006.