Training on RTI Act and NREG Act organised at Tiklipada, Jamankira, Sambalpur by Sambalpur Integrated Development Institute (SIDI) on 24/25 April 2006
A two-day residential training programme on ‘how to make use of Right to Information Act 2005 and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’ was held in the premises of Tiklipada High School at Tiklipada under Jamankira Block in Sambalpur district on 24th and 25th of April 2006. It was organized by Sambalpur Integrated Development Institute (SIDI), Jamankira for its staff and social activists working among the tribal and other marginalized sections in its project area comprising two Blocks, Jamankira of Sambalpur district and Tileibani of Deogarh district. A total of 50 participants working in these two Blocks attended the training programme.
The resource person of the training programme was Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Right to Information Campaign, who stayed for the whole training period with the trainees at Tiklipada, the venue of the training programme. The following resource materials were provided to each trainee for their use in course of the training programme.
- Oriya translation of RTI Act 2005
- Oriya translation of Orissa RTI Rules 2005
- Oriya translation of NREG Act 2005
- A Poster in Oriya on Sections 4 and 18 of RTI Act 2005
DAY- 1, 23RD APRIL 2006
The training programme was formally inaugurated by Sri Parsuram Thakur, an elderly eminent person who had served as a Sarpanch of Paposi GP under Tileibani Block in Deogarh district for several terms in the past. Sri Antaryami Panigrahi, Project Coordinator of SIDI first of all extended a note of welcome to the resource person, staff of SIDI and social activists who had gathered for the training programme, which centred round two recently introduced, important national level legislations like RTI Act and NREG Act. Then Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo, Coordinator SIDI spoke briefly on the objectives of the training programme. Sri Sahoo observed that the staff and activists present for the training programme were already conversant though in a general way with the rights guaranteed to the people under these two legislations, and particularly speaking, had already taken some steps to collect information from various public offices at local level using the RTI Act. They have achieved some success in getting the information they had asked for under the Act, but also faced several questions and problems in the process. To proceed further in the use of the RTI Act in the interest of the people, they wanted all their questions and doubts clarified in a specially organized training programme. Simultaneously they also felt that the NREG Act 2005, which has come officially into operation since 2nd February 2005 in all the selected 200 districts of the country including the 18 districts of Orissa was not being implemented in the manner in which it was envisaged to be. So they also wanted to know the nitty-gritty involved in the operationalisation of the NREGA in Orissa and how could they as NGO workers and social activists intervene to improve upon it. The present Training Programme, conceived as it was in this backdrop has therefore the prime objective of enabling the participants to clearly grasp what were the rights and entitlements available to the people under RTI Act and NREG Act, how these two Acts were being implemented in Orissa, and what they as a civil society group should do in order to ensure proper realization of the said rights and entitlements.
Initiating the 1st session of the training proper, Sri Chitta Behera informed the trainees about the net results that all should strive to achieve by the end of the two-day programme. Firstly, we should not only know thoroughly the Scheme and Rules made by the Government of Orissa for operationalising the NREG Act and RTI Act respectively, but also the deviations and deficiencies found thereunder vis-à-vis the mandates of the mother laws, and Memoranda should be addressed to the appropriate authorities at State and Central levels to remedy them. Secondly, looking at the recent trends of tardiness and reluctance in the performance of the government agencies in implementing these two important people-centred legislations, it was apparent that the government agencies left to them were not temperamentally disposed to deliver the expected benefits to the people at large as envisaged under the two Acts. So the role of the civil society groups was of critical significance on two fronts, firstly, to make the people aware about their rights and entitlements and motivate them to demand the same, and secondly, to press the concerned government agencies at various levels, by way of intermittent interaction with them, to set aright the omissions and commissions found in their operational processes.
Then speaking about the method of proceedings of the training sessions, Sri Behera observed that the discourses of the first day would aim at bringing about as much theoretical clarity as possible to the participants in respect of their questions and doubts. For this, observed further Sri Behera, a collective reading of the salient provisions of the two Acts and related operational guidelines of the Government of Orissa would be required to be carried out with everybody participating in the discussion by way of either raising the questions on his/her doubt seeking clarification, or by answering or clarifying a question so raised on any matter relevant to the said provisions. And the main job of the resource person, in course of such plenary discussions would be to facilitate the progress of the interactions in the targeted manner and also to correlate, as and when necessary, the discussion on a specific matter to the other relevant texts and sub-texts by way of reference, with a view to enable the participants to gain a holistic and integrated perception of the provisions of the two Acts. Thus on the first day the participants were supposed to acquire a clear understanding, on a theoretical plane of course, of the relevant provisions of the two Acts from an operational perspective. And on the second day, they shall put the lessons so learnt into practice by way of visiting different public offices for seeking information under both Acts and thereby gain a practical and working knowledge on how the two Acts are being oprationalised in their local offices and also of the shortcomings, if there were any, in the manner of executing the same by the concerned public authorities. After the participants agreed to the broad framework of the agenda so proposed, the discussion started on the RTI Act, to start with.
Training on RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules
Briefing about the operative part of the RTI Act, the Resource Person observed that the Act provides for two methods in which a citizen can access official information. Firstly, through Section 4 that provides for suo motu disclosure by every public authority of all information held by it, to access which no application or waiting time is necessary, and secondly, through Section 6, under which a citizen is required to apply for information along with the necessary fee and wait for a maximum period of 30 days to receive a reply from the concerned PIO informing the applicant about the further fee that he/she has to pay for getting the whole or part of the requested information or about the rejection of the application so submitted along with the grounds thereof. Since the Act obliges every public authority to disclose all the information allowable under the Act through these two methods, a citizen should decide on either of the options to receive the desired information keeping in view the factors of time, cost and hassles involved in each.
Preferring Section 4 to Section 6
An illustrated Poster carrying the extract on Section 4(1b), penalty provisions under Section 20, a citizen’s right to compensation under Section 19(8b), the provisions placing the onus of proof on the PIO in any appeal proceedings as mentioned under Sections 19(5) and 20(1) and the addresses of the Central Information Commission and Orissa Information Commission was displayed on the wall of the meeting hall for ease of reference during the discussion.
The resource person observed, if people follow the method of making written application under Section 6 of the Act, then one has to spend money, wait for several days and if not satisfied with the response from the PIO, put complaint or appeal before the Information Commission. Moreover, there is no deadline within which the Central or Orissa Information Commission shall dispose of a complaint or appeal, though a State such as Madhya Pradesh has provided for a time-limit of 30 days for an appeal to be disposed of by their Information Commission. Needless to say, absence of a time-limit for the adjudication of an appeal by the Commission is troublesome for both the complainant/appellant and the concerned public authority or its PIO. Such being the reality, both the officials and citizens should therefore prefer the route of Section 4 to that of Section 6 under the Act. And the Section 4(2) of the Act itself clearly says that ‘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 moto 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.” It means that if the officials can provide all the information as categorized under Section 4(1b) on their own proactively from their side to the public, then the question of making an application or payment of money or of waiting for several days along with the litigations incidental thereto shall not arise at all. The Section 4 has assumed added significance, especially in the context of Orissa, where a largely objectionable set of State RTI Rules along with an exorbitant fee regime have been enforced in a manner contrary to the letter and spirit of the mother Act.
Of course, one positive thing about the Orissa Rules is that it has not adversely affected the provisions under Section 4 (suo moto disclosures) and Section 18 (direct complaint before the Information Commission) of the Act. Rather the Rule 2(2) of Orissa Rules says, “Words and expressions used but not defined in these rules shall have the meaning as assigned to them in the Act”. Thus to grasp the full import of Sections 4 and 18 which the Orissa Rules have not touched upon, is of crucial and critical significance for both officials and civil society in the interest of proper operationalisation of the Act in the State of Orissa.
Then Sri Behera said, now the moot question arises, how to disseminate the information under Section 4(1b) of the Act? The Explanation to Section 4 defines the word ‘dissemination’ by saying that the information need to be served through various media including inspection of the concerned public offices by the members of the public. Some officials think that they have done their job by putting the 17 categories of information on the Internet. But internet is only one of the media suggested by the Act. Other media are printed materials in the local language, notice board, display boards, exhibitions and the like. And the easiest of all media is to enable the members of the public to inspect the 17 categories of records during the working hours of an office. Every office has to make adequate arrangements such as for sitting, reading and taking notes etc. for the visiting public in connection with inspection by them of the said records.
The next question arises, should a member of the public have to apply in Form A under Orissa RTI Rules to inspect a record under Section 4? As per the Orissa Rules, the Form A is meant only for the information sought under Section 6(1) of the Act. So a person seeking information under Section 4 needn’t have to apply in Form A or to pay the application fee prescribed under Orissa Rules. Again, the question may arise, should he have to pay any ‘inspection fee’ as prescribed under Orissa Rules for inspecting the records under Section 4(1b)? As a matter of fact, the Schedule of Fees, which forms an appendix to the Orissa Rules prescribes the inspection fee as Rs.15/- per hour. But if you closely examine the sub-title of the Schedule i.e. ‘See Rules 4 and 7’, it would be clear that all the fees prescribed therein relate to the Application for Information (Rule 4) and Memorandum of Appeal (Rule 7) which again relate to Section 6 and Section 19 of the Act respectively. So when one seeks the information under Section 4 from a public authority or wants to lodge a complaint before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act, he needn’t have to pay the fees as prescribed under the Schedule of the Orissa Rules. Then the question arises, if a citizen wants to collect copies or samples etc. of the information under Section 4(1b), how much fees he or she has to pay? To answer it, let us first of all, see the definition of ‘fee’ as given under Rule 2 (c ) of Orissa Rules, which recognizes only 3 kinds of fees, that is, Application Fee under Section 6(1), Cost of Providing Information under Section 7(1) and Cost of Electronic Medium under Section 7(5) of the Act. The fee for information under Section 4(4) is omitted from the said definition of ‘fee’ under the Orissa Rules, though the RTI Act in Section 27(2) allows a State Government to prescribe the rate of fee against the supply of information under Section 4(4) too [see Section 27(2a) of the Act]. And as already said, the matters not defined under Orissa Rules shall have the same meaning as assigned in the Act. So as per the Orissa Rules itself, the cost of providing the information under Section 4 shall be as mentioned under the Section 4(4) of the Act. And the said Section says categorically that such information shall be provided free or at the actual cost of the medium or print, that may be prescribed by a State Government. Since the Government of Orissa haven’t prescribed any fee against the supply of information under Section 4(4), the other option i.e. its availability free of cost shall apply. Thus if a public authority charge Rs.5/- per page of Xerox, Rs.10/- per page of computer print-out, or Rs.100/- per CD or Floppy or Rs.15/- per an hour of inspection quoting the rate chart mentioned under the Schedule appended to the Orissa RTI Rules, such an act shall be patently illegal on their part since this rate chart is applicable only to a person who seeks the information under Sections 6 or make an appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
In sum both RTI Act and Orissa Rules say:
a) A citizen has the right to instant inspection of the official records of a public authority under Section 4(1b) without having to make an application or pay any application fee [Explanation to Section 4],
b) All the materials under the Section 4(1b) can be provided to the desirous citizen free of cost,
c) Every public authority shall provide the materials under Section 4(1b) in the local language and in an easily accessible medium [ Section 4(4)]; and
d) Every public authority shall provide for adequate infrastructural facilities for the members of the public to visit, inspect and collect information under Section 4(1b) of the Act [Section 4(1b-xv)].
Penalty Provisions:
The question arises, if a member of the public is denied information on any ground under Section 4 of the Act, what he or she should do? The Section 18 of the Act provides for a comprehensive scope for the citizens to directly complain before the Information Commission, if he or she is denied information under any ground including that under Section 4. The Format for Memorandum of 1st and 2nd Appeal along with the fees of Rs.40/- and Rs.50/- respectively as prescribed under the Orissa Rules relates to the Section 19 of the Act. Thus as per the Orissa Rules itself, there is neither any format nor fee necessary to lodge a complaint directly before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act. So any citizen can directly address his/her complaint on a plain paper to the Information Commission by the following addresses:
- Chief Orissa Information Commissioner
State Guest House, Bhubaneswar
- Chief Central Information Commissioner
Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-67
The complaint under Section 18 on the ground of infringement of Section 4 of the Act to be addressed to the Information Commission may and should contain the following information, depending upon the specific nature of the case:
- The circumstances and grounds of Complaint,
- Loss or detriment suffered by the complainant or public at large due to non-disclosure of the concerned information, and nature of compensation sought,
- Corrective, penal or disciplinary action sought against the concerned public authority
- A prayer for disclosure of the information sought.
It is worth remembering that while the Appeals under Section 19 are aimed against the concerned PIO or APIO appointed under a public authority, the Complaint under Section 18 on the ground of the infringement of Section 4 shall be primarily directed against the Public Authority as a whole or for all practical purposes against the head of the concerned public authority, since the job of compliance to the requirements of Section 4 is not the job of PIO, but that of the Public Authority itself.
Then Sri Behera informed that the RTI Act provides for stringent penal and disciplinary action against the errant officials (Section 20). And in case of every complaint or appeal the onus to prove one’s innocence lies on the PIO who denied the information [Sections 19(5) and 20(1)]. A simple complaint by an aggrieved citizen under the Section 18(1) of the Act, which requires no application format nor any appeal fee, can land the PIO in great trouble before the Information Commission, and no higher officer of his/her Department can come to his/her rescue. Similarly a simple complaint under the same Section against the head of a Public Authority on the ground of negligence to make proactive disclosure of suo moto information under Section 4(1b) can compel him/her to compensate for the loss or detriment suffered by the aggrieved citizen [Section 19(8b)].
Sri Behera wrote down a model letter of complaint under Section 18(1) on the blackboard and told the trainees to adapt it to the specific situation and grounds as and where necessary.
On transparency and grievance redressal mechanism under NREG Act 2005
About the link between RTI Act and NREG Act, the resource person observed that though one can access information about the implementation of NREG Act from any concerned public authority by using the RTI Act, especially its Section 4 (1b- xi, xii and xiii), the NREG Act itself has strong RTI components built into it, which can be used by any person to know about its implementation at any level. Let’s look at the salient transparency provisions contained in the NREG Act.
The Section 23(3) read with Point 13 under Schedule-I of the NREGA enjoins upon each State Government to frame such rules as to maintain transparency and accountability at all levels in the implementation of the Scheme. Section 23(4) provides for payment of all wages and unemployment allowances to the persons concerned in the presence of independent persons of the community on pre-announced dates. The Section 17 entrusts the Gram Sabha to conduct regular social audit of all the projects under the Scheme taken up within the Gram Panchayat. The Point 15 under Schedule 1 obliges the District Programme Coordinator, Block Programme Officer and Gram Panchayat to prepare annual reports on implementation of the NREG Scheme at their level, and the same can be given to the public on demand. The Point 16 mentions that all accounts and records relating to the NREG Scheme shall be made available for public scrutiny. The Point 17 provides for the right of any person to inspect the muster rolls of each Scheme or a project under the Scheme, to be made available in the offices of Gram Panchayat and the Programme Officer. The Point 22 under Schedule-II says that a list of persons who are provided with the work under the Scheme shall be displayed on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat and Office of Programme Officer and the same shall remain open to inspection by any person interested.
Similarly the NREGA has definite provisions for redressal of grievances of the public arising in course of implementation of a Scheme or a project under the Act. The Section 19 enjoins upon the State Government to provide, by way of making rules, for appropriate grievance redressal mechanisms at Block and District levels. The Section 23(6) obliges the Programme Officer to register every complaint relating to the implementation of the Scheme and dispose of it within 7 days of the complaint so received. If the matter of complaint relates to some other authority, the Programme Officer shall forward the same to that authority with intimation to the complainant. The Point 10 under Schedule-II enjoins upon the Gram Panchayat and Programme Officer, as the case may be, to accept the valid applications for work from the interested persons and issue a dated receipt to an applicant or a group of applicants.
Then it was felt necessary to examine whether the Scheme as made by the Government of Orissa under the Act and being implemented at various levels by the concerned public offices conforms to the abovementioned provisions. Though nearly 3 months has elapsed since the implementation of the Act commenced in Orissa as elsewhere in the selected districts of the country, the very essential step i.e. the issue of job cards to the employment seeking families has not yet been completed in Jamankira or Tileibani Block, let alone providing employment or unemployment allowance to them under the Act. So the civil society groups have a definite role to play in catalyzing the process of operationalisation of the provisions of the Act, and they can play this role effectively only if they can approach the concerned implementing authorities, first of all, to get to know from them about the steps already taken and those planned for execution for implementing the provisions of the Act in their respective spheres. As already said, the civil society groups by way of using the above mentioned transparency and accountability provisions under the NREG Act not only can know about all these matters but also can dialogue and pursue the said authorities for properly implementing the provisions of the Act with a view to help the job seeking villagers realize their rights and entitlements guaranteed under the Act.
Formation of Groups for Visit to Offices for seeking information
In the evening session, all the participants were divided into 4 groups, each group to visit one or two offices in Jamankira Block or Tileibani Block for seeking information under the RTI Act or NREG Act. Each group decided on the offices to be visited by them. The resource person in a preemptive move informed the trainees on the possible questions that the concerned officers might raise just to escape somehow their lawful obligation to provide the information instantly and free of cost, and also on the appropriate answers the group members should give and that too promptly on the face of the said officers by way of quoting the relevant provisions of the two Acts. It was decided that the groups would set out at 7 AM in the early morning for visiting the offices assigned to them and return by 1 PM for the mid-day lunch to be kept ready at the office of SIDI, Tiklipara. After the trainees felt fully assured of their capacity to conduct the dialogue with the concerned officers to a successful conclusion, the 1st day’s business came to a close and everyone broke off for dinner and rest.
DAY-2 ( 24TH APRIL 2006)
As per the schedule at around 7.30 AM in the early morning two groups left for visiting the offices in Tileibani Block in Deogarh district, located about 20 km away from Jamankira, while other two groups stayed back to visit the offices located at Jamankira itself. And all the groups came back to the training venue at around 1 PM, took their lunch and rested for about one hour before the next session started.
Presentation by Groups:
On behalf of the Group-1, Sri Laxmidhar Bindhani presented their group experience. They had been to the office of Ranger (KL) at Godrapada. Incidentally it is worth mentioning that some persons belonging to this group had already visited this office some days earlier for seeking information relating to Kendu Leaf trade under the RTI Act, but having found the Ranger absent had to return disappointed. The information was sought on the composition and functions of Fadi Committee, the sale proceeds from the Fadi and expenditure incurred thereon, bonus to the KL workers and the salary and allowances paid to the officers and staff of the office. This time also the Ranger, as was reported by his Clerk, was absent from the office on the ground of a tour to Kuliana. The group asked the Clerk about the arrangement, if any made by his office for providing the information under the RTI Act to the visiting public. The Clerk replied that no such instruction has been given to anybody, nor anybody in his office knew about what to do under the RTI Act. Then the group requested the clerk to draft a complaint on their behalf to be forwarded to the State Information Commission. The Clerk replied that he didn’t know how to write such a complaint, but however provided the note-sheet alongwith a carbon paper for the group to write the complaint. Then the group wrote the complaint and submitted it to the clerk for the purpose of forwarding the same to the Commission. The clerk kept the complaint with him and assured to send it to the Commission along with intimation to all concerned authorities including the DFO in their Department for their knowledge. The clerk also gave a properly stamped acknowledgement receipt of the said complaint to the group.
The letter of complaint was read out to all the participants. The resource person expressed his satisfaction at the due manner in which the Group-1 had prepared the complaint for submission to the State Information Commission. He also advised the group to send the duplicate copy of the complaint directly to the State Information Commission at the earliest.
On behalf of Group-2 Sri Parimal Panda presented their group experience in visiting the Tileibani Block Office. The information they sought from BDO was on GP-wise registration and employment status under NREG Act in 16 GPs of the Block, accounts including receipt and expenditure under the Act till date and the number and types of projects taken up and ready to be taken up. The BDO who was present then readily showed the concerned files for inspection by the group. After inspecting the same the group wanted a copy of the statements containing abstract of the relevant figures. And on the instruction of the BDO an office assistant provided two sheets containing the said kinds of information. Neither BDO nor anybody in his office asked for any fee in lieu of the sheets of information so provided. Above all, the BDO thanked the group for visiting the Block office for seeking information on implementation of the NREGA in different GPs of Tileibani Block and welcomed them to approach him again and again if and when they wanted any data regarding any public work. After hearing this group report, the resource person commented that the response and behaviour shown by the BDO Tileibani was an ideal one, and every official should interact with members of public seeking information under NREGA or RTI Act in the like manner.
On behalf of Group-3 Sri Kishore Chandra Dehury presented their experience of visiting the Jamankira Block office. The information they sought was on registration and employment status under NREG Act in the Block. The BDO who was present then immediately agreed to provide the said data for inspection by the group and asked a staff of his office to help the members of the group inspect the concerned data directly from the computer itself. Then the Group perused the data on the computer screen, and asked for a copy of the same. The BDO also agreed to provide the same. However since the power went off, the said data couldn’t be provided instantly, and the group were told to collect the same at their convenience afterwards. The group then discussed with BDO as to why no employment has been so far given under NREGA. The BDO explained that due to several reasons beyond their control, no work has been started yet in his Block though registration has been completed and some job cards issued. He further informed that they have planned to construct 2 to 3 watershed projects in each GP under the NREG A, and an action plan for the same has already been finalized at his Block level, based upon the opinion of the people’s representatives. The group having been satisfied with the disclosure of information and discussion on NREGA by the BDO thanked him and took leave of him.
On behalf of Group -4 Sri Bhubaneswar Dwivedi presented their experience of visiting the PIO of Jamankira Block. The PIO first of all told them that they should submit an application in prescribed format along with the deposit of required fee and then only his office would be able to process the same for giving the desired information. But the members of the group argued that they were seeking information under Section 4 of the Act which didn’t require any application to be made. Then the PIO told that in any case they should deposit the necessary fees at the rate mentioned under Schedule 1 of Orissa RTI Rules for getting the information wanted. The group however showed the Section 4(4) of the Act to prove their point, as learnt from the training session, that since the Orissa Rules has not prescribed any fee for information under Section 4(4) of the Act, the other option mentioned under the said Section i.e. the information covered under Section 4(1b) should be made available free of any cost, should be acted upon. However the PIO who was incidentally busy otherwise neither accepted such an explanation given by the group nor tried to convince the group about the logic of his assertion based upon any reference to the Act or Rules. While trying to dissuade the group from approaching him for information in this manner, he was all the while saying that though he has received training on RTI from the Government, no body has ever told him to give any information without any application or fee submitted by a citizen for the purpose. Moreover, he was complaining that though an additional burden of being the PIO for the Block has been entrusted to him, no extra remuneration was being given to him against it. Above all, he said that as he was awfully busy at that moment around other matters of the Block administration, he couldn’t possibly pay the necessary attention to the matters on RTI, and if the group would visit him on the Saturday, he would be able to discuss in detail with the group about what the group wanted to know or to tell. Having found the PIO too obstinate in his position, the group wanted, just in the manner as learnt from the training session the previous day, to lodge a complaint under Section 18 of RTI Act, to be forwarded by the PIO himself to the State Information Commission. When the suggestion of complaint was mooted, the PIO in a carefree manner said, ‘Let you do anything, I can’t at all spare time today at this moment for your RTI matters’. Then the group thought that in stead of writing a complaint then and there, they should give a chance to the PIO to think for himself over whatever was argued out before him and the group should turn up on Saturday, as suggested by the PIO, to discuss in depth and extensively with him about the provisions of RTI Act, especially Section 4 which read with read with Rule 2(1c) of Orissa RTI Rules provided for the suo motu disclosure of all information held by a public authority and the right of a citizen to access it instantly, without having to make an application and more so free of cost. Then the Group departed from the Block Office to visit the next office.
On behalf of the Group-4, Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo presented their experience of visiting the local branch of State Bank of India located on the side of the main road in Jamankira Chhak itself. This was the only Central Govt office visited by any group in course of the practical exercise on RTI held on the day. The information sought by the group from the Bank was the total number of SHGs operating under the Bank’s jurisdiction during 2005-06 and amount of loans sanctioned to SHGs and recovered from them during the said period. The Bank Manager immediately welcomed the members of the group to the cabin where the computerized data were available. He showed all the relevant data on computer screen to the group to their satisfaction. After the group finished the inspection of the required data on the computer screen, the Bank Manager told the group about the disclosure policy of his Bank. He said that all the information of Bank were as such open to the public except of course the accounts of the private individuals. The later kind of information can however be shown to the Police, CBI and Income Tax authorities as and when they want to see. Then the Bank Manager commending the performance of the SHGs operating through his Bank said that none of them has been a defaulter yet and every SHG was doing very well. Further the Manager offered a proposal to the group, if and when they would bring forward a case of any new SHG for getting assistance from the Bank, he would be happy to consider it. Being satisfied with the response of the Bank Manager, the group returned back straight to the office of SIDI, where the lunch was kept ready for all the trainees.
After the presentation of the group reports was over, the resource person gave his observations on the performance of the groups. He commented that except only one case, in which there couldn’t be any conclusive result, the rest of the group visits have been successful either in getting the required information under Section 4 or in lodging a complaint under Section 18 of the Act to the Information Commission. It seemed the activists have got further enlightened and experienced about how to read the provisions of the RTI Act along with Orissa RTI Rules with a view to access various kinds of information from both Central and State Government offices immediately and without having to submit any application or fees for the purpose. The activists who got training from this camp should in days to come continue to practice such group visits to different public offices in their respective areas, and thereby the technique of using the selected provisions of RTI Act and Orissa RTI Rules for accessing information quickly, easily and freely would spread far and wide among the people.
Then Sri Antaryami Panigrahi, Project Coodinator SIDI said that as per the agenda already announced the previous day, a Memorandum should be presented to the Governor Orissa with intimation to all other concerned authorities at both Central and State levels, wherein the demand shall be placed for a drastic revision of Orissa RTI Rules so as to remove all ultra vires provisions from it and bring it in conformity to the letter and spirit of the mother Act. He read out a draft memorandum in Oriya for the purpose and invited the opinion of the participants thereon. The participants supported it by way of clapping their hands.
With a vote of thanks to the resource person and the trainees on behalf of SIDI, the training programme came to a close at around 4.30 pm.