Block-level Interactive Workshop on RTI Act 2006 held at Padampur Block Headquarters, Baragarh District under the joint aegis of Padampur Sub-divisional administration and Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam Network, Padampur on 7th 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 third one in the proposed series of workshops was held at Padampur Block Headquarters on 7th 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 Sarat Ch. Sethi, the Sub-divisional Public Relations Officer-cum- Assistant PIO, Padampur, who also introduced the guests and speakers seated on the dais. The panel of guests and speakers included Sub-divisional Revenue Officer-cum-PIO at Padampur (Sri Prasanna Kumar Sarangi), the Resource Person Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Right to Information Campaign (www.orissarti.com) supported by Actionaid, Sri Damodar Sahu, BDO Padampur (Raja Budhasambar), Sri Manoranjan Singh Bariha, Chairperson Bargarh Zilla Parishad and Smt.Lilavati Bariha Chairperson Padampur Panchayat Samiti. However, Sri Bilchus Lakra, Sub-Collector Padampur who couldn’t be present at the time of inauguration of the Workshop due to some unavoidable reasons, came and joined in the proceedings of the Workshop mid-way and after hearing its deliberations for quite some time had to leave gain for attending to some urgent business.
In course of his note of welcome Sri Sarat Ch. Sethi, APIO told that the RTI Act came into effect on 15 June and into full force on 12th of Oct 2005bthroughout the country including Orissa. Its main objective is to bring about transparency in the system of governance, as a result of which corruption can be eradicated at grassroots level. The Act among other things provides for penalty against the concerned Government officers for not disclosing information to the public.
Then the BDO Padampur Sri Damodar Sahu, who had received the training on RTI Act from a training programme organized by State Information Commission recently in Bhubaneswar, gave a brief talk on the significance of the new law. He said that RTI Act is a revolutionary law, due to which India’s rank as a corrupt country has come down from 76 last year to 70 this year as per the recent survey published by Transparency International. Now RTI is a constitutional right. If it is properly enforced, administration shall be transparent and accountability level of officials increased. Every citizen can apply to every public authority for getting the information he/she wants. Every office needs to appoint a Public Information Officer for the purpose, along with an Appellate Officer, whose duty is to sort out the grievance of the citizen arising out of denial of information by the PIO. Even one can appeal against the decision of the appellate officer before the State Information Commission. But to start with, a citizen has to apply in Form-A as warranted under Section 6 of the Act, and the PIO is supposed to respond to him in Form B mentioning the cost of information to be paid by the citizen applicant before procuring the information. Sri Sahu then concluded his talk with the hope that other resource persons shall deal with various provisions of the Act in detail for the benefit of the participants.
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. Unlike other laws which are just published in the Gazette and thereafter informed to the Government agencies for implementing their provisions, the RTI Act 05 itself (vide Section 26) makes it obligatory on the part of every Government agency to propagate and popularize it in various ways among the people at large. In pursuit thereof all the public authorities in our State starting from Suchana Commission down to Block Office are now busy in organizing awareness camps on RTI Act. He then added that on the date of enactment itself i.e. 15th June 2005, certain provisions chiefly relating to the preparatory work to be undertaken by the public authorities for successful implementation of the Act, came into force while the remaining provisions were enforced on 120th day of the enactment i.e. on 12th of October 2005 ( vide Section 1-3).
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 the information about a file and its notings that contained the opinions and advices of the concerned officers, information in the form of a sample or the information stored in electronic media like CD, Cassette or Floppy.
On the ambit of the Act as dealt with under Section 2 (h) he 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. The NGOs, which are funded by the Government are also liable to disclose information about themselves under the Act.
As per Section 3 of the Act, every citizen of the country is entitled to his/her right to information from the public authorities. It means that the applicant needn’t mention the designation he or she holds in an organization Government or private in the body of the application.
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. Such 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 workload of every office in respect of providing information to the citizens shall be automatically reduced.
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 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. As per the Stamp Act, the persons belonging to SC and ST families are exempt from stamp duties. But the RTI Act has a different principle regarding exemption of fees. A person belonging to a BPL family can be exempted from paying the application fee and appeal fee, provided he/she would attach a photocopy of his/her BPL card in proof of his/her BPL status. A BPL person is however liable to pay the fees towards the cost of information.
As per Section 7, 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 cash. The PIO is duty bound to furnish the requested information within 30 days, and within 48 hours in case the information relates to the life or liberty of a person. However, the applicant wanting the information within 48 has to provide some tangible proof as to how his/her life or liberty is affected.
If the PIO fails to discharge his/her duty to provide the information in a time-bound manner, the aggrieved applicant might prefer his/her first appeal within 30 days against the decision so taken by the PIO before the first appellate authority of the said office (vide Section 19-1). The 1st appeal shall be disposed of within 30 to 45 days. If the aggrieved appellant is not yet 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 (vide Section 19-2), whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.
The PIO if proved a defaulter can be penalized by the Information Commission under Section 20(1) of the Act at the rate of Rs.250/- against every day’s delay upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/-. And as per Section 20(2) of the Act, any of the 13 kinds of disciplinary action as mentioned under the Government Servant Conduct Rules may be initiated against the PIO for violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
If, however, the PIO on receipt of an 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 if a question appears to the PIO to be of absurd nature, (such as how many birds are found sitting on each tree in Padampur sub-division or how many fishes along with the colour of each fish are available in a particular pond), then he might reject the application.
Each public office must maintain a Register in Form-F for recording the details of the receipt and disposal of applications for information made under Section 6 of the Act. And based upon the data so maintained, every office shall prepare an annual report on the progress of implementation of RTI Act by them.
Addition by APIO Sri Sarat Ch. Sethi-
Immediately following the talk of the SRO-cum-PIO Sri Sarangi, Sri Sarat Ch. Sethi the SPRO-cum-APIO, Padampur added that the Section 8 of the Act despite its elaborate provisions for exemption from disclosure authorizes a PIO to disclose certain of the otherwise exempted information if he/she thinks that public interest would better be served by the disclosure of such information than the protection of its secrecy. (vide Section 8-2.)
Then the next Resource Person of the day Sri Chitta Behera started his deliberation by expressing his sincere gratitude to both Sub-divisional administration Padampur and SMPU Network for having given him the opportunity of speaking on RTI Act and Orissa Rules before an august assembly that consisted of PRI leaders, Govt officers, media persons, lawyers and CBO functionaries. He also extended his special thanks to Sub-Collector Sri Bilchus Lakra, who had meanwhile made his time to arrive at the workshop and listen to its deliberations. Outlining the contents of the talk to be made by him, Sri Behera told that he would only fill up the points left out by the SRO and simultaneously speak on certain subtle nuances of RTI Act and the Orissa Rules made there-under, from an operational perspective. To facilitate discussion, he requested Sri Fakir Charan Rout, Network Coordinator of SMPU to read out the concerned provisions from the Act, Rules and guidelines etc. as and when required from the book supplied to each participant as a reading material, Sri Behera first said that all the 3 wings of State, namely legislative, executive and judiciary and all the public authorities working under each such wing are fully covered under the RTI Act (vide Sections 2 - a and h). However the point regarding NGOs, already referred to by SRO needs some clarification needs. It is true that the NGOs or for that matter any private body are obligated to disclose information about themselves under the RTI Act. But the moot point arises, how a citizen can access information about such private body? Does he/she have to approach or apply directly to the office of an NGO or private body, just as he/she is required to do in case of a governmental organization? No, because the Section 2(f) while defining 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.” If for instance, somebody wants to know the activities of an NGO, he/she has to approach or apply for the purpose to the public authority, which controls or regulates or funds directly or indirectly some or other activities of that NGO.
Then adding to SRO’s observation on the ambit of right to information, Sri Behera told that the Section 2(j) which defines RTI mentions at its opening the right to ‘inspect a work’. It means that if a person or a group of persons feel that the construction work of a govt-funded project is being carried on with materials of inferior quality vis-à-vis the sanctioned norms, then they can approach the concerned public authority to inspect the ongoing construction work. And moreover, while the Section 6 speaks in terms of a single person as the applicant for information, the Section 4 repeatedly talks in a plural number such as ‘public’. Thus the entire population of a village, say for instance, can demand to inspect an ongoing work under Section 4 of the Act. And since every information covered under Section 4 is in the nature of a proactive disclosure, the group of people seeking to inspect an ongoing work needn’t have to fill up the Form-A, which has been prescribed under Section 6. An oral request by the concerned people shall do and the concerned public authority is obligated to allow such group an instant inspection of an ongoing work. In this connection, it ought to be further 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) under Section 4(1b) 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 observed that between the application mode for accessing information as mentioned under Section 6 and the suo motu modu as mentioned under Section 4, the Act itself accords priority to the latter over the former. Section 4(2) of the Act says, “It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information”. In pursuance of the said mandate of the Act, 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, had 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.” And specifically speaking, of all the suo motu disclosures to be made by each public authority, top priority was given by the Government of Orissa to the Item No. XVI under Section 4(1b) of the Act i.e. the need for a bold display on a hoarding or wall-writing in front of each Government office announcing the names of PIO and Appellate Authority of that office (vide Operational Guidelines by Chief Secretary Orissa dated 28th October 2005). Again, the Rule 2(2) of Orissa RTI (Amendment) Rules 2006 in order to facilitate the citizens’ right to inspect the proactive disclosures 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.”
Then Sri Behera observed that just like two modes of accessing information, the Act provides for two modes of appeal/complaint to be lodged by the aggrieved citizen 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 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.
The next question arises, who shall do the formalities like writing and dispatching the complaint to be so made under Section 18(1)? Since most of our people don’t know how to read or write, the Section 6(2) has entrusted the responsibility of application-writing to the PIO for the person who is unable to write it himself or herself. Further, the Section 5(2) says that it is the responsibility of the Assistant PIO to forward the appeal/complaint of the aggrieved citizen to the departmental appellate authority or to the Information Commission, as the case may be. Further the Section 18(1) says that if a PIO refuses to forward such complaint/appeal to the appropriate appellate authorities, then such refusal can become an additional ground of the complaint against the concerned PIO/APIO. If the PIOs and APIOs of every office follow this salutary provision of forwarding the complaints/appeals of the aggrieved citizens to the concerned appellate bodies, then much of the problem arising in the aftermath from the fabricated and exaggerated complaints often resorted to by the malcontented applicants and consequent overload of work on appellate bodies at different levels won’t arise at all.
Taking the cue from the SRO’s treatment of the exempted information as grounds of PIO’s refusal to provide the requested information as dealt with under Section 8(1) of the Act, 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 nos. of 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. The only exemption from disclosure that has received the sanction of the Act relates to copyright protection as dealt with under Section 9 of the Act. The said Section debars the a public authority from disclosing the information to an applicant, if such disclosure would infringe on the copyright of an individual. However, this exemption won’t apply to information involving the copyright of a government official.
The Act clearly says (vide Section 7-1) that a PIO can reject an application only by quoting any or some grounds covered under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, but on no other ground. In this context it is pertinent to note that the Form-C (intimation of rejection) prescribed under Orissa RTI Rules 2005, which lists out as many as 9 grounds for rejection by a PIO has simply overstepped the limits imposed by the Act.
Then Sri Behera dealt with the observation made by the previous speaker that a BPL person needn’t pay the application and appeal fees, but has to pay the fees towards the cost of information. He insisted on the participants to go through the clear mandate of the Act as contained in the proviso to Section 7(5), which says, “Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government”. The previous speaker at that point however made a loud remark that the Government of Orissa which framed the Rules had made the provision for collecting fees towards the cost of information from the BPL families. Then Sri Behera asked the entire house, if anybody could show or quote from any document of Orissa Rules, where it would be mentioned that the BPL persons have to pay the cost of information as covered under Section 7 (1 and5) of the Act. The previous speaker then replied that they were told so by the resource persons in the training programme organized recently by Orissa Suchana Commission at Bhubaneswar. Then Sri Behera told, be that as it may, the website of Orissa Suchana Commission and also that of Government of Orissa does display an FAQ, which clearly in tune with the mandate of Section 7(5) of the Act exempted the BPL families from payment of all the 3 kinds of fees. He however still wanted to know, if anybody in the house could show any written evidence to the effect that the BPL persons have to pay the cost of information as covered under Section 7(1 and 5). At this point the Sub-divisional APIO Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi stood up and read out the Point-17 from an Oriya brochure he had received from a training camp on RTI. The Point 17 in fact mentioned that the BPL persons are exempted only from application fee, but have to pay the cost of information. However, on scrutiny of the said document it was found that the brochure was an anonymous publication in the sense that it didn’t bear the mention of name of any author or publisher. In absence of an authoritative and explicit provision under Orissa RTI Rules about the liability of BPL families to pay for cost of information, how can and should the people at large take for granted the contention of the anonymous write-ups like the brochure shown by APIO vis-à-vis the clear mandate of the parent Act?
Then Sri Behera explained, why he along with several other civil society groups and individuals in and outside Orissa including stalwarts like Mrs.Aruna Roy (MKSS Rajasthan) and Advocate Mr.Shailesh Gandhi (Maharastra) have called the Orissa RTI Rules not only illegitimate, but also absurd. Giving an instance of absurdity, Sri Behera continued, a person, say from Padampur applies for information to a Government office at Bhubaneswar, and the PIO of the said office intimates in Form-B to pay a sum of Rs.50/- by cash towards the cost of information. Now the question arises, how the applicant living at Padampur shall remit the cash to the PIO stationed at Bhubaneswar? Since, the Orissa Rules doesn’t support other modes of payment like Cheque or MO or IPO (Indian Postal Order), the applicant is bound to physically run all the way from Padampur to Bhubaneswar and back, just to deposit by hand a sum of Rs.50/- towards the cost of information. Will such an absurd provision work at all? , quipped Behera with an appeal to every body to ponder over it.
Sri Behera further told that due to time constraint he could illustrate only one out of several absurd provisions with which Orissa RTI Rules 2005 is afflicted with. Not only that. The Orissa Rules also abounds in several provisions which militate against the letter and spirit of the parent Act. And that is why, the book which has been circulated to all the participants of the workshop through the courtesy of SMPU Padampur is titled, “Why Orissa RTI Rules absurd and illegitimate, even after amendment of 29 May 2006?”. And as one could see that the book towards its end contained a letter of reply from the Office of Governor Orissa dated 26.11.05, which acknowledged the receipt of several memoranda addressed to him from the civil society on the illegitimate character of the Orissa Rules and the need for its drastic overhaul. The Office of Governor in the said reply had directed ‘Information and Public Relations Department’, the nodal agency of the State to ‘examine the suggestions and take action as deemed proper, under intimation to this office for record’. But till date the petitioners have not received any information either from the I&PR Department or from the Office of Governor as to what steps have been taken by the concerned authorities in this regard. That is why, the vigilant civil society groups of Orissa are still carrying forward their campaign against the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 in all possible manners, and the above book is just a tool of the ongoing campaign. It is worth remembering here, the relation between Act and Rules is like the relation between a parent and his/her child; just as the gene of the child can’t be different from that of the parent, so also the provisions kept under the Rules by any State can’t violate the letter and spirit of the parent Act, which is a Central one. But regretfully enough, Orissa RTI Rules has blatantly gone against the mandate of the RTI Act on several counts. And we are confident, today or tomorrow or day after, the Orissa Rules has to fall in line with the intentions of RTI Act 2005. With this observation, Sri Behera concluded his talk.
Closely following the talk made by Sri Behera, the SRO-cum-PIO of Padampur Sub-division Sri P.K.Sarangi intervened to clarify that the book circulated to the participants has been published by the NGOs and no body should take the views expressed therein as that of the administration.
Then the Chairman Bargarh Zilla Parishad, Sri Manoranjan Singh Bariha presented a brief talk on the background of RTI Act. He said that right to good governance ensues implicitly from other fundamental rights like freedom of speech and right to life and liberty as provided under Part-III of Indian Constitution. Realising the importance of RTI as a tool of good governance, V.P.Singh Government at the Centre had first initiated the process of legislating right to information in our country. Then Mrs.Aruna Roy, an erstwhile IAS Officer, who had resigned from her job and founded an NGO called MKSS led a vigorous movement in the State of Rajasthan in 90s demanding enactment of right to information. The campaign started by her in due course engulfed the whole country, and what we have as RTI Act 2005 was its net result. Sri Bariha then observed that RTI Act, if properly implemented by the Government and exercised by the people, it can bring about the much needed transparency in all the affairs of administration, and consequently the people shall get all their entitlements due to them and Government shall show a clean image. While this is true, there is also the possibility that the RTI Act can be abused by the mischievous minded people in the society. Just as a knife serves different purposes depending on who uses it, a doctor or a dacoit, the abuse of RTI can also lead to unwarranted consequences. And all of us should remain aware about this lesson. With the hope that the RTI Act would be properly implemented by the local administration in the genuine interest of the public at large, Sri Bariha concluded his talk.
Interaction with Participants
As scheduled, the talks were soon followed by an interactive session, in which the participants were encouraged to raise any question seeking clarification by the resource persons.
Question No.1: By Sri Radha Madhab Dora, Samiti Member Padampur Block:
What is the practical situation? Since the PIOs/APIOs are are attending other duties in the capacity of being officers, can they give enough time and attention required for giving information to the public?
Answer by APIO of Padampur Subdivision: Despite other duties, the officers who are designated as PIOs/APIOs are bound by law to give information.
Question/Opinion No.2: Sri Radha Madhab Dora, Samiti Member Padampur Block:
In view of the ambiguous provision made under Orissa Rules, it is an act of hypocrisy on the part of State Government to collect fees from BPL families?
Question/Opinion No.3: By Advocate Sri Ajit Satpathy:
There is in fact a single mode of payment i.e. only by cash, as mentioned under Orissa RTI Rules.
Answer by APIO:
Though the Orissa Rules provides for cash as the only mode of payment towards cost of information, the PIO in his reply in Form B may write to an applicant how to make the payment?
Question No.4: Sri Maheswar Puri Jamala:
Whether Police Station is covered under the Act? If so, who is the PIO of the local police station?
Answer by Sri Behera:
Please see the Para-2 of the Proceedings of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 22.8.05. There it is mentioned that all Departments shall appoint PIOs and APIOs etc. in a tme-bound manner. The Department of Home, which deals with Police Stations is included in the list. As such the local police station is supposed to have appointed a PIO under RTI Act. It is not indispensable that you must know the name of PIO. If you write an application addressed simply to the designation PIO of a police station, somebody or the other would receive it and respond to you.
Vote of thanks by APIO:
Vote of thanks was offered by Sri Sarat Chandra Sethi, the SPRO-cum-APIO Padampur. However before formally doing it, he wanted all the participants to note down ‘the treasury code’ of the Challan to be made towards the application fee (“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"). Then Sri Sethi offered sincere thanks on his behalf and on behalf of the organizers of the workshop to the resource persons, guests, officials, NGOs, journalists and lawyers who have made the workshop a great success by their informed participation.
Following the vote of thanks, the Workshop was declared closed by the Sri Damodar Sahu, BDO Padampur (Raja Budhasambar), who was chairing the session. Then every body was requested to join the lunch arranged for them at Panchayat Bhavan.
Minutes prepared by:
Fakir Charan Rout,
Network Coordinator, Samuhik Marudi Pratikar Udyam (SMPU)
Padampur