Training of Trainers on Right to Information Act 2005

For NGO/Forum Leaders

Organised by CASA at Human Resource Development Centre,

Meherpada, Jharsududa during 11-13 July 2006

The Right to Information Act 2005 came into force on 15^th June 2005 with partial application of its select provisions throughout the country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and as per its Section 1(3), it came into full force with effect from 120^th day of its enactment i.e. 12^th of October 2005. The first set of Orissa State Rules under the Act was announced in 1^st week of October 05, while the Appeal Procedure Rules on 6^th March 06 and Amended RTI Rules on 29^th May 06. Despite such facts the people across the State remained largely indifferent to the unique scope available to them under the new legislation to access information from various public authorities. The situation seemed to be more disappointing in the relatively backward regions of South and Western Orissa, where the sizable chunk of population belonged to the marginalized communities like Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Particularly the district of Jharsududa which falls under western Orissa presented a depressing picture in respect of implementation of RTI Act, since almost no body applied for information under the Act so far. Though the district administration had organized a sensitization workshop on RTI for the officials with the State Information Commissioner Prof.Radhamohan as the main speaker and an awareness meeting for civil society groups was held earlier, neither the administration nor the common people were found to have been activated enough to make use of the Act for the purposes for which it was enacted.

In such a backdrop, the CASA ( Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action) HRD Centre Jharsuguda decided to organize a 3-day residential Workshop for Training of Trainers on RTI for the partner NGO and Forum leaders hailing from districts of Sundargarh, Sambalpur and Jharsuguda. The objective of this Workshop was to make conversant the participants with the operational principles of the RTI Act and Orissa Rules in such an indepth manner that they would feel enabled and confident enough to assist the common people with whom they work in their respective areas to approach any public authority for getting the desired information with least difficulty.

A total of 32 participants attended the training sessions held at HRD Centre of CASA at Meherpada, Jharsuguda. And the Resource Person of the Workshop for its entire duration was Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Right to Information Campaign, while Sri Sadasiv Khristo Das Coordinator and Sri A.P.Mohanty Field Officer of the Centre facilitated the conduction of the programme as per the schedule.

FIRST DAY : 11^th July 2006

The opening session of the TOT commenced at 11 AM on the 11^th July with a note of welcome extended to all by Coordinator Sri Khristo Das. It was followed by a couple of devotional songs presented by some participants to mark the auspicious inauguration of the programme. Then the resource person and each participant gave their self-introduction along with a brief resume about their field of work and experience, if any, in RTI related matters. It was observed that, out of all only two participants had attended a Seminar on RTI organized by district administration at Jharsuguda while two others who came from CIRTD of Sundargrh had possessed some field knowledge of applying under Section 6 of RTI Act. For the rest of the participants the RTI as a subject was a novel one.

The following reading materials were distributed to each participant:

-         The RTI Act 2005 and Central RTI Rules including Appeal Rules ( Oriya)

-         Orissa RTI Rules 2005 (Oriya)

-         Amended Orissa RTI Rules 2006 (Oriya)

-         Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 (Oriya)

Then the Resource Person observed that he had covered 26 out of 30 districts of Orissa in connection with the RTI campaign, and in about 10 places of the said districts, group visits to public offices were organized to seek information from them or alternatively to  lodge complaint before the Information Commission, if the groups were denied the information. He also showed the copies of the information so collected and of the complaints so lodged by those groups. He therefore suggested that during the training programme itself, the participants, divided into different groups should visit various public offices at Jhrasuguda for seeking information under the Act just to put to test their knowledge that would be acquired from the training sessions.

Then based upon the consensus of the participants, the objectives of the Training Programme were finalized as follows:

-     To acquire knowledge on RTI Act and Central and State Rules made under the Act;

-    Testing the knowledge so acquired, by way of visiting various public offices at Jharsuguda to seek information or lodge complaints under the Act;

-     To find out loopholes, if any in the Act and Rules, based upon the collective study and experience gathered in course of group visits, and presentation of the Memoranda to the concerned authorities for remedying the same; and

-    To draw up an Action Plan for the future.

The day-wise reporting of the Training Programme was entrusted to the following participants:

-1^st Day:  Rabindra and Rajesh

-2^nd Day: Srikanta and Dhirendra

-3^rd Day:  Margaret, Berjina and Manjori

Then the Resource Person wanted the trainees to get conversant with some preliminary ideas about the RTI Act. First of all, for the sake of clarity in understanding, he divided the information under the Act into two kinds, from the point of view of the manner of their disclosure:

-     Information subject to suo motu disclosure by public authorities under Sec 4, which a citizen can access instantly without submitting any application or fee,

-    Information which is provided by a public authority on application under Sec. 6.

He further observed that though the Act provides for two modes of accessing information on the part of a citizen, the Government has always however been publicizing and advertising the application mode under Section 6 while maintaining silence about the other mode i.e. instant, non-application and cheaper mode under Section 4. As regards the significance of the latter mode, it was told that a poor person who wants a piece of information immediately and who can’t bear the hassles of making an application and moreover who can’t pay exorbitant fees should opt for the provision of his/her right to instantly inspect/access any information, which every public authority is supposed to have kept ready for disclosure with effect from the date of full enforcement of the Act. And moreover, the RTI Act in its Section 4(2) does also enjoin upon each public authority to disclose as much information as possible suo motu under Section 4 of the Act so that the need for people resorting to other provisions of the Act with a view to get their desired information is minimized. So the current training programme should focus on the need for mastering the technique of accessing information under Section 4 of the Act, observed the Resource Person.

Before proceeding further the Resource Person wanted the trainees to get a clear idea about the difference between Act and Rules. It was explained that when a Bill after getting passed in Parliament or State Assembly is signed by the President or Governor as the case may be, it becomes an Act, and the Rules are made by the Government i.e. the administration or the concerned Department for the purpose of operationalising the provisions of the Act in its respective sphere. However, under no circumstances, the Rules can go against the letter or spirit of the Act. As an example in the context of the RTI Act, the Act was passed by Parliament in May and assented by President on 15^th of June 2005, and thereafter the Rules applicable to Central Government were made by Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances GOI, while Orissa RTI Rules were made by Department of Information and Public Relations on behalf of Government of Orissa. It was observed that while the Central Rules broadly conformed to the mandates of the Act, the Orissa Rules suffered from very many omissions and commissions vis-à-vis RTI Act. 

Then Ms.Berjina was requested to read out aloud the provisions made under Section 4 of the Act, and trainees were asked to understand the meaning and implications of each. The Section 4(1a) obligates a public authority to reorder the arrangement of all the information available with it and document and as far as possible computerize them, in such a manner as to enable a citizen stationed in any corner of the country to access it easily. The Section 4(1b) obligates a public authority to publish all information concerning its organization and as well the public functions it is entrusted to discharge, under 17 heads or categories. It was explained by way of illustration that whatever information an average citizen would like to seek from a public authority fell under some or other category mentioned under Section 4(1b). Then Section 4(4) of the Act was read, which inter alia provided that the information falling under Section 4 would be provided either free of cost or at the cost of print or medium to be prescribed by the appropriate Government. The Explanation to Section 4 while explaining the term ‘dissemination’ said that it would mean among other things the act of allowing a citizen to inspect a public office. As regards the cost of information chargeable under Section 4 by an appropriate Government, the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 and Amended Rules 2006 were referred to, and it was found that the Rule 2(c ) that defined ‘fee’ provided for only 3 kinds of fees, namely the fees under Sections 6(1), 7(1) and 7(5) while leaving out the fee under Section 4(4). Though the Section 27(2) had given a clear option to every appropriate Government to prescribe as many as 4 fees under Sections 4(4), 6(1), 7(1) and 7(5), neither Government of India nor Government of Orissa has prescribed any fee under Section 4(4) while specifying other 3 kinds of fees. Moreover, both Central and Orissa State Rules [vide 2(c ) and 2(2) respectively] categorically mention that the words or expressions which are not defined thereunder shall bear the same meaning as assigned to them under the Act. Thus by implication, the Act and the corresponding Rules made by Centre or State Government, if read together establish beyond any shade of doubt that the public authorities under both Governments are supposed to provide the information under Section 4(4) free of cost to the public.

The next question that was taken up for discussion was what remedial measures were available under the Act in the event of a public authority’s refusal to provide information as per the provisions of the Act. The Resource Person observed that the Act provided for the constitution of appellate authorities at various levels to hear the appeals and complaints of the aggrieved citizens. Over all the Information Commission has been set up separately at Central level and State levels, who are the final arbiters in the matter of adjudication of all appeals and complaints arising from the alleged non-observance of the Act and Rules by the public authorities. As for the redressal of citizens’ grievances, there were available two methods, namely a direct method and an indirect method, by which an aggrieved citizen can reach the Information Commission. As regards the indirect method, the Section 19 says that if a citizen is aggrieved by the refusal of a PIO (Public Information Officer) to provide the information as per the provisions of the Act, then he/she may lodge the first appeal before the officer senior in rank to the PIO, who might have been designated as the 1^st appellate authority for the said office. The first appeal is supposed to be disposed of within 30 to 45 days of the date of appeal so submitted. If the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the 1^st appellate authority, he/she may lodge, within 90 days of the date of the decision made under the first appeal, the 2^nd appeal before the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be. However there is no deadline within which the 2^nd appeal shall be disposed of. Both the Central Government and State Government of Orissa have published the appeal rules for the purpose of making of appeal by the citizens before their respective Information Commissions. Though the Act didn’t provide any space for prescription of appeal fees and the Central Government  complied with this injunction, the State Government of Orissa however prescribed Rs. 40/- and Rs.50/- as the fees for first appeal and second appeal respectively (subsequently reduced to Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- as per the Orissa Amended RTI Rules). Again, though neither the Act nor the Central Rules provided for any format in which an appeal shall be made, the State Government of Orissa has prescribed Form D and Form E to be used for making 1^st and 2^nd Appeals respectively.

But the RTI Act also provides for a direct method of placing one’s grievance against a public authority or its PIO straightaway before the Information Commission i.e. by using Section 18(1) of the Act. This provision empowers a citizen to lodge a direct complaint against a public authority or PIO in the event of latter’s refusal to provide access to the desired information. Neither the Act nor the Central Rules nor the State Rules of Orissa has prescribed any format or fee for making a complaint under Section 18 of the Act. Again, the recently announced Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006 has provided under Rule 6 that a complaint should contain five items of information such as name and address of the complainant, the name and address of officer/officers against whom the complaint is being made, the facts relating to the complaint including the information on when and where the cause of complaint had arisen, proof if any to corroborate the grounds of complaint and the relief wanted. The Orissa Rules further provides that the complaint should be sent by a registered post with AD addressed to the Registrar of the Commission, who is required to register it by way of assigning a unique number to it in the calendar year to which it pertains. It is further provided that the Registrar shall facilitate the correction of the letter of complaint in consultation with the complainant, if necessary. But the Rule 6 inter alia provides categorically that the Commission shall not reject a complaint without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned complainant. The Rule 9 further provides that a Complainant may opt out from the hearing or send an authorized representative, who may not be a legal practitioner, to attend the hearing on his behalf. Thus there is no ground for a complainant under Section 18 of RTI Act to worry about the legal expenses which a person normally incurs in the process of adjudication of a case, as and when tried in the traditional courts.

Then the Resource Person explained that in view of the simple and low-cost procedure laid down for making a direct complaint before the Information Commission as allowed under Section 18, it should be preferred as against the time-consuming, expensive and two-stage appeal process as provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

The Act has also bestowed certain advantages in favour of the complainant or appellant, as the case may be. Firstly, as the Sections 19(5) and 20(1) stipulate, the burden of proof in any appeal proceedings shall lie on the PIO concerned. Secondly, the Section 20 provides for monetary fine against the defaulter PIO at the rate of Rs.250/- per day for the delay in supplying the wanted information upto a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- and also disciplinary action against him/her as per the concerned service rules as and where necessary. Thirdly, the Section 19(8b) provides for compensation to be paid by the concerned public authority to the applicant if the latter suffers any loss or detriment in the process of seeking information under the Act. With such protection assured to the complainant/appellant there was no point as to why a person should hesitate to lodge an appeal or complaint as the case may be, under the Act against the officer/officers who have denied the information to him/her under the Act.

In the post-lunch session, the participants were divided into 5 Groups, each group to be assigned with one or two offices, from where they would seek information under RTI Act on an experimental basis the next day. The Groups so formed to visit the offices for the purpose were as follows: 

Group 1:   Sarba Sikhya Abhijan and Civil Supply : Pintu, Samir, Pushpalata and Gobardhan  

Group 2:  Tahsil and Block : Sadasiv, Gouranga, Kuni, Birjina, Jayamani and Sukeswar  

Group 3:  Collector and SP: Magretha, Mohan Lal, Pulin and Upendra

Group 4:  DRDA and Horticulture: Dhirendra, Rabindra, Rajesh, Boita, Subodh

Group 5: GPO (Gram Panchayat Officer) and Agriculture: Srikant, Bishal, Potira and Prem

Each Group was told to formulate the questions that they would ask the concerned office to seek information under the RTI Act. And then the work of 1^st day came to a close. 

SECOND DAY: 12^th JULY 2006

The work of the 2^nd day began at around 9.15 AM with Mr. Sadasiv Khristo Das, Coordinator of the Centre welcoming in the participants. A devotional song was recited by a participant to mark the auspicious commencement of the day’s business. Then Mr.Rabindra Behera read out the report of the proceedings of the first day. After some discussions took place on the omissions and commissions of the said report, the business of the second day proper started.

At first, each group was asked to write prominently on a chart paper the questions on which they shall collect the information from the office to be visited. After they did that, a plenary discussion was held on the appropriateness of the questions so formulated. From his side the resource person Mr.Chitta Behera suggested necessary correction for reformulating the questions, with a view to ensure that no question should be dismissed by the concerned officer merely on technical grounds. Accordingly, necessary revision was introduced into the questions, and the latter in their final shape stood as follows:

Group-1 ( Offices of SSA and CSO)

Questions to Office of SSA:    

(i)         How many school buildings were constructed in villages under Kantapali GP by the end of year 2004-05?

(ii)         How much money has been spent year-wise on account of Anandamay Siksha during 1^st April to 31^st March 2006?

(iii)       How mach money has been spent Block-wise in Jharsuguda district to implement Bridge Schools by the end 2004-05, and amount of money spent for each school.

Questions to Office of Civil Supply:    

( i) Number of ration cards of each type issued GP-wise in Kolabira Block during the year 2005-06.

(ii) Amount of Paddy collected from each GP in Jharsuguda district during 2005-06, and amount of money paid to the farmers and pending on that account.

Group-2 (Offices of Tahsildar and BDO)

Questions to Office of Tahsildar:

(i)         List of Officers and Staff working in the Office of Tahsildar and their salary and allowances;

(ii)        The types and rates of taxes and dues collected by the Office of Tahsildar from the people;

(iii)       The extent of Wasteland, Gochar and Anabadi land available in Sahanspur GP under Laikera Block; and

(iv)      How many persons have received the Land Pass Books from Jharsuguda Tahsil uptil now? 

Questions to Office of BDO:

(i)         Amount of money sanctioned and utilized on each scheme during the years 2004-2006 through the Office of BDO;

(ii)        How many persons have been registered under NREG Act uptil today in Jharsuguda Block, how many have been issued job cards, how many have been provided with job, and how many have been paid unemployment allowance.

Group- 3 (Offices of District Collector and SP)

Questions to Office of District Collector:

(i)        What is the land area provided to Bhushan Steel Plant, and out of it how much is the forest land?

(ii)       How many families have been displaced due to land acquisition during 2001-06 and how many from among them rehabilitated?

Questions to Office of SP:

(i)        How many and what types of information can be available from your office?

(ii)       How many cases have been filed during 2005-06, and out of the same, how many are cases relating to atrocity on women?

(iii)      Out of the total number of cases so filed, how many have been forwarded to the Court, how many have already been investigated, and how many are still undergoing investigation?

Group- 4 ( Offices of DRDA and Horticulture)

Questions to Office of DRDA:

(i)         How many persons have been registered under NREG Act uptil today in Jharsuguda district, how many have been issued job cards, how many have been provided with job, and how many have been paid unemployment allowance?

(ii)        How many Mahabandhs were sanctioned in the district during 2001-2006, and amount sanctioned against each and how many were actually completed and the amount utilized against each?

(iii)       How many examinations were conducted for recruitment of Sikshya Karmi during 2005-06? How many were selected, and what were the numbers belonging to SC, ST, OBC and General Castes from among them? and

(iv)       The list of officers and staff working in the office of DRDA and the duties entrusted to each of them.  

Questions to Office of Horticulture:

(i)         What are the training programmes conducted by your Department for enabling the youth for self-employment?

(ii)        How many such training programmes were held during January to June 2006, and the number of persons trained under each?

(iii)      What benefits were provided to the trainees after the training was over?

Group 5 (Offices of District Panchayat Officer and Agriculture)

Questions to Office of District Panchayat Officer:

(i)         The number of seats reserved for candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and Women in different Panchayats under Kolabira Block for the purpose of forthcoming Panchayat election in 2007.  

Questions to Office of Agriculture:

(i)         How many Farmers Melas were held in Jharsuguda district during years 2004-06? How many people attended each, and how much money was spent against each?

(ii)        The kinds of seeds along with amount of each sanctioned for distribution in the district as a whole during 2005-06, and how much out of the total was provided and utilized for Kolabira Block?    

After the questions were finalized, the Resource Person wanted the participants to be aware of some useful tips that would help them in course of their visit to different offices.  

Firstly, the visiting group should meet the head of an office while seeking information under Section 4. Should they want to submit an application under Section 6, then they should meet the PIO. Only if the head of an office and his sub-ordinates be absent at the same time, then the group might meet the PIO or Assistant PIO of that office for getting information under Section 4. Secondly, if an officer would take the excuse of absence of the concerned staff for not furnishing the desired information, then the group should show and read out different provisions made under Section 5 of the Act. This Section says that every office should have one or more PIOs and one or more Assistant PIOs. If both PIOs and Assistant PIOs remain absent from an office, then it is supposed that they should have entrusted any other officer of that office to work on their behalf for providing information to the public. Thirdly, if an officer in stead of responding in a positive manner to the group’s request for information would ask them to visit some other office to get the required information, then the group should immediately point out the provision made under Section 6(3) that the concerned officer himself should write to the other office where the information sought would be available.  

Then the Resource Person told the groups that the Act under Sections 5(2) and 18(1) enjoins upon the PIO or Assistant PIO of a public authority to write and dispatch the complaint or appeal to be made by an aggrieved information seeker to the 1^st appellate authority or Information Commission, as the case may be. So the group, if aggrieved by the non-compliance by the concerned officers to the provisions of the Act, should insist upon the concerned officers to draft and dispatch the complaint on their behalf. And if the said officers refuse to write the group’s complaint, then the group should write it by themselves addressed to the Information Commission under Section 18(1) of the Act and submit a copy of the same to the concerned office for the latter’s information. 

Further the Resource Person told the groups not to argue with any staff of an office, since the Act has given powers only to the officers, not to the staff. Only when an officer refers them to a sub-ordinate employee for disposal, then only the group should converse with and convince the concerned employees about their purpose of visit and also about the provisions of the Act and Rules.

Again, the last tip given by the Resource Person concerned a very basic problem i.e. how to initiate their dialogue with the concerned head of office after they arrive there for seeking information under the Act. Everybody knows that the most of officers have the wrong habit of talking to the visiting public from a seated position while the members of public keep standing all the while during the talk. The RTI Act 05 under its Section 4(1b) contains however an item i.e. Point- xv, that obligates a public authority to disclose suo motu what facilities in terms of reading room and library etc. they maintain for the members of public visiting an office for information under the Act. Under this provision an office might require to provide all necessary facilities like sitting arrangements, toilet, drinking water and waiting space etc. within its premises, which are barely necessary for the public visiting under the RTI Act. The Resource Person advised the groups that if they find no such facilities available in an office, they should open their talk with the concerned officer on the very question as to what facilities the office had provided in compliance of the item-xv under Section 4(1b) of the Act. If the groups start asking such basic questions on the strength of the RTI Act, then the public authorities would feel pressured to provide the bare facilities and conveniences for the use by the visiting public sooner or later.

Then the groups left for their respective destinations. After visiting the offices assigned to them, the groups returned at around 1.30 pm to the venue of the training and took the mid-day lunch. The post-lunch session started around 3 pm and each group presented their experience of visit to the offices.

First of all, the Group-2 described their experience. They had been to the Office of Tahsildar Jharsuguda to collect information on the pre-scheduled questions. Since the Tahsildar was absent, they met the Additional Tahsildar and told him the purpose of their visit. They were offered seats by him. He however asked the group to submit a written application in Form-A for getting the said information. The group tried to persuade the Additional Tahsildar saying that since the required information fell under the category of suo motu disclosures under Section 4, they shouldn’t be asked to fill up the application form. They further told that as per the provisions of the RTI Act read with Orissa Rules, the information under Section 4 should be made available instantly, without any application or fee to be submitted. But the Addl. Tahsildar without paying any heed to the arguments of the group continued to insist on the filling of the application form, as an indispensable requisite for accessing any information under the Act. Then the group returned from there with a decision taken by them to lodge a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Orissa Soochana Commission.

Then the Group-2 visited the Office of BDO Jharsuguda. Since the BDO was absent at that moment, the group met ABDO and after introducing themselves told him about their purpose of visit and information wanted from that office. The ABDO offered seats to the members of the group, but after ascertaining that some members of the group belonged to another Block, he asked the group, ‘The persons belonging to another Block can’t ask for information about this Block’. But the members of the group tried to convince the ABDO that the RTI law entitled every citizen of the country irrespective of his/her residential address to ask for information from every public authority, and they therefore had full right to ask for the required information. The ABDO was however not convinced by the argument made by the group, and told the group that whatever information they wanted should be applied for in the prescribed Form-A. Then the group returned from the Block office and decided to register a complaint under Section 18(1) before the Information Commission.  

The other 4 Groups also presented their experience one after another. The experience of all the groups was more or less similar. No office responded to them positively. And the reasons for denial of information in various offices can be summarized as follows:

-     The officers are not aware about how to provide suo motu information under Section 4 of RTI Act.

-     The appointment of PIOs/APIOs has not been properly done. Even where they have been appointed, they were not properly aware about how to disclose suo motu information to the public on demand.         

-     No body has yet approached any public office for information, and therefore no office has any practical experience to go by for disposing requests for information under different provisions of the Act.

-    Where there are PIOs, they don’t entrust any other officer to deal with public on RTI matters as and whey they keep absent from the office.

-    The documentation of various kinds of information with a view to ensure proper delivery of information to the public has not yet been attempted.

Then the lesson on how to write a complaint under Section 18(1) addressed to the Orissa Information Commission started. The Resource Person first refreshed the memory of the discussion held on the previous day about the contents of such complaint as provided under Rule 6 of the Orissa Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2006. The Complaint should be sent by registered post with AD to the Registrar of the Commission. On opening the letter of the Complaint, the Registrar shall enter the particulars of the Complaint in a separate register maintained for the purpose and allot a unique number to the said Complaint. If the complainant receives no response from the Commission within a reasonable period, then he/she can pursue the matter by way of sending reminder to the Commission based upon the number and date of the receipt of the said complaint as mentioned on the body of the returned AD. The groups were told to write their respective complaints by themselves after the day’s training was over, and to present the same before the plenary the next day for observation by other participants and the resource person. Thus came to an end the business of the training for the 2^nd day.

THIRD DAY : 13^th JULY 2006

The training programme for the third and final day started around 10 AM with Mr.Sadasiva Kristodas, Coordinator of the CASA HRD Centre welcoming in all the participants and resource person to the first session of the day. Then on his request Ms.Bimala Pradhan and Mr.Pabitra Mohan Biswal presented a devotional song to mark the auspicious start of the day’s business.  

Then the Resource Person Mr.Behera requested the leaders of the groups to read out the complaints prepared by them one after another. After hearing each letter of complaint the Resource Person suggested some necessary correction to be made. It was found that one group had missed to mention the name of the officer against whom the complaint was to be made. The members of the said group therefore went out to the town to collect the name of the concerned officer. They returned back to the session after collecting the missing information. The Resource Person warned the members present not to miss barely necessary particulars like name and designation of the officers and staff with whom they had interaction, exact time of their visit, words used by the concerned officer in response to the request for information, and who else from the concerned office or from the visiting public happened to witness the interaction at the moment.

After incorporating the suggestions for amendment, a total of 8 Complaints were neatly prepared for submission to the Orissa Information Commission. The group members themselves wrote the addresses on the envelopes meant for registered post. The following 8 complaints under Section 18(1) were ultimately dispatched:

-         Against Office of Tahsildar, Jharsuguda by 6 petitioners

-         Against  Office of DRDA, Jharsuguda by 5 petitioners

-         Against the Block Office, Jharsuguda by 6 petitioners

-         Against the Office of District Horticulture, Jharsuguda by 5 petitioners

-         Against the Office of District Agriculture, Jharsuguda by 4 petitioners

-         Against the Office of Sarva Siksha Abhijan, Jharsuguda by 4 petitioners

-         Against the Office of District Civil Supply, Jharsuguda by 4 petitioners

-         Against the Office of District Collector, Jharsuguda by 4 petitioners

Then the Resource Person observed that the groups shouldn’t feel disappointed for their failure to collect information from the concerned offices. They should rather keep it in mind that to lodge a complaint against an erring office is as important as, even more important than receiving a piece of information. The social activists can better facilitate  the process of operationalisation of RTI Act in every public office by way of lodging direct complaints to Information Commission. The Complaint so lodged shall in due course impact the concerned office to set right their deviant manner in responding to the request for information under the RTI Act. Moreover, the two Information Commissioners of Orissa, who are drawing fabulous salaries along with various allowances every month are supposed to examine the complaints so made and pass their orders to redress the grounds of grievance of the public by way of censuring and even penalizing the errant officials. If the members of the public hesitate to make a complaint, what the Commissioners shall do, if not simply idle away their precious time? At the present stage, when the officers at cutting edge of administration are still callous about implementation of the RTI Act in their respective domains, there is no way out open to the social activists except motivating the public to make as many complaints as possible under Section 18(1) of the Act straight before the Information Commission.

Then the discussion of the house centred round the Action Plan for the future. Based upon the views expressed by the participants, the following measures were suggested for implementation in future by the trainees and their organizations.

-     Disseminating the message and lessons on RTI among the villagers at Panchayat and Block levels;

-    Campaign through wall posters on RTI;

-    A Review meeting of the follow-up action taken, after a month; and

-    Publication of a compilation on RTI Act and Orissa Rules in Oriya language for easy use by the common citizens.

After the Action Plan was finalized Sri Sadasiva Kristo Das, Coordinator delivered a brief but inspiring talk by way of his valedictory address to the participants. He told that India won independence at a huge cost in terms of the sweat and blood of innumerable martyrs and freedom fighters. But their dream of Swarajya didn’t matrialise even after 6 decades of political independence. Rather a painful reality stares all of us in face today, when we see corruption and malfeasance in public life everywhere. In such a dark environment all around, we however see a flicker of hope in the shape of Right to Information Act, which if applied properly can whisk away the demon of corruption in no time from the public life. And then only all of us can breathe a sigh of relief. But the reality is such that the officials of the Government, whose misdeeds are likely to be exposed to the limelight by and through the RTI Act, won’t like to see that this new law of transparency is disseminated and take root among the people. So it is the civil society groups, who want the benefits of all developmental plans and schemes of the country straightaway flow to the common man unobstructed and in full have to strive hard to get it operationalised. The 3-day training programme which is just concluded has shown them the concrete way as to how to apply it in course of day-to-day activities of the organization i.e. by way of visiting various public offices for seeking information on matters of public interest and if information is denied, then to lodge complaint before the Information Commission. It is hoped that all the participants shall put the lessons learnt through the training programme into practice while carrying out the various programmes of their respective organizations.

Then Sri Arun Prasad Mohanty, Field Coordinator of CASA, HRD Centre at Jharsuguda who stood up to offer a vote of thanks to the participants, spoke a few significant words about his feelings on the training programme itself. He observed that the visit by information-seeking groups to various offices, as a part of the training process has become a matter of public talk in Jharsuguda town. Moreover, it is matter of great achievement that the trainees who earlier didn’t at all imagine the possibility of their visit to a public office and demanding instant information as a matter of right from the high-up officials, could experience in course of this training programme that such a unique right did exist, and they could use it to their satisfaction. They have also internalised a cardinal message from the practical exercised so undertaken, i.e. henceforward they can serve the cause of the people better by way of opening their eyes to this new unfailing instrument called RTI Act for asserting all their civil and human rights before any functionary, small or big of the State.

Then the 3-day TOT programme came to a formal end.