Citizen Monitoring Report on “One Year Performance of Odisha
Information Commission” from June 2015 to May 2016
Information Commission” from June 2015 to May 2016
·
Due to lack of knowledge,
expertise and experience and sheer inefficiency, Odisha Information
commissioners have miserably failed to give justice to the citizens.
Due to lack of knowledge,
expertise and experience and sheer inefficiency, Odisha Information
commissioners have miserably failed to give justice to the citizens.
· Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani
has devoted just 10 days for hearing in a month.
has devoted just 10 days for hearing in a month.
· Disposal rate is very
dismal leading to frustration among information seekers.
dismal leading to frustration among information seekers.
· The contents of their
decisions suffer from grammatical errors along with carrying no meaning at all.
decisions suffer from grammatical errors along with carrying no meaning at all.
·
Both the Information
Commissioners dispose each just 2 cases
per month.
Both the Information
Commissioners dispose each just 2 cases
per month.
·
Both the Information
Commissioners draw salary of 2
lakhs per month which is a great loss to
state exchequer.
Both the Information
Commissioners draw salary of 2
lakhs per month which is a great loss to
state exchequer.
As per section 18, 19, 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission is empowered is empowered
to hear and dispose Second Appeal petitions and Complaint Cases, ensure availability of
information to appellants/ complainants,
impose penalty on defaulting PIOs and award compensation to aggrieved
Information Seekers. Besides
that the
Information Commission is required
to publish Annual Report for every year,
recommendation for reform to Public Authority, if any required for
development, improvement,
modernisation, reform or
amendment to this Act under section 25
of the Act.
to hear and dispose Second Appeal petitions and Complaint Cases, ensure availability of
information to appellants/ complainants,
impose penalty on defaulting PIOs and award compensation to aggrieved
Information Seekers. Besides
that the
Information Commission is required
to publish Annual Report for every year,
recommendation for reform to Public Authority, if any required for
development, improvement,
modernisation, reform or
amendment to this Act under section 25
of the Act.
Keeping it in
view, RTI Application was filed by Sri Sanjay Sahu, RTI Activists and member of
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan to
the PIO, Office of Odisha Information Commission seeking information about details
of days spent by each Information Commissioner for hearing of the case, total
no. of complaint case heard ad disposed by Each IC, penalty imposed,
compensation awarded and number of cases still pending for disposal from June
2015 to May 2016. It needs to be
mentioned here that both the
Information Commissioners were appointed in the second week of June 2015.
view, RTI Application was filed by Sri Sanjay Sahu, RTI Activists and member of
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan to
the PIO, Office of Odisha Information Commission seeking information about details
of days spent by each Information Commissioner for hearing of the case, total
no. of complaint case heard ad disposed by Each IC, penalty imposed,
compensation awarded and number of cases still pending for disposal from June
2015 to May 2016. It needs to be
mentioned here that both the
Information Commissioners were appointed in the second week of June 2015.
On 13.7.16,
In response to RTI Application, the PIO supplied the required information which
is as follows.
In response to RTI Application, the PIO supplied the required information which
is as follows.
1. No. Of days
devoted for hearing by both
the Information commissioners
from June 2015 to 16th
May 2016
devoted for hearing by both
the Information commissioners
from June 2015 to 16th
May 2016
|
12 Months
|
No. of days
devoted for hearing |
|
|
Sri
L.N.Patnaik, SIC |
Ms. Sashi
Prava Bindhani, SIC |
|
|
185
|
128
|
|
|
Average
days devoted for hearing in a month |
15
|
10
|
Analysis:- In an average while Sashi Prava
Bindhani spends just 10 days in a month
for hearing, Sri L. N. Patnaik
devotes only 15 days in a month. God Knows what they are doing rest of the days in a month.
Bindhani spends just 10 days in a month
for hearing, Sri L. N. Patnaik
devotes only 15 days in a month. God Knows what they are doing rest of the days in a month.
2.
No. of Complaint/ Second Appeal Cases heard
and disposed
No. of Complaint/ Second Appeal Cases heard
and disposed
Though both of the State Information Commissioners (
SICs) got appointment
in second week of June,15 , but
they started hearing of the case in
August, two months later of their appointment. So the analysis of the
cases heard and disposed has been made
for 10 months ( from August 2015 to May 2016).
SICs) got appointment
in second week of June,15 , but
they started hearing of the case in
August, two months later of their appointment. So the analysis of the
cases heard and disposed has been made
for 10 months ( from August 2015 to May 2016).
|
|
No. of Complaint/ Second Appeal Cases heard
and disposed |
|||||||
|
|
Complaint cases heard
|
Complaint cases disposed
|
Second Appeal cases heard
|
Second Appeal cases disposed
|
Total cases heard ( both Complaint and SA)
|
Total cases disposed ( both complaint and Second
Appeal) |
||
|
L.N.Patnaik, SIC
|
157
|
27
|
1163
|
291
|
1320
|
318
|
||
|
Sashi Prava
Bindhani, SIC |
Month-wise
figure has not been cunningly provided by the PIO |
1456
|
269
|
|||||
|
Division Bench ( both the SICs sit together)
|
28
|
1
|
568
|
80
|
596
|
81
|
||
( N.B.- While analysing this figure, the no. of cases heard and disposed in Division
Bench was divided
between two SICs in order to arrive
at conclusion about no. of cases heard and disposed by each of them )
Bench was divided
between two SICs in order to arrive
at conclusion about no. of cases heard and disposed by each of them )
Analysis:
a.In an
average, Sri L.N.Patnaik, SIC hears 162 cases (132 own cases + 30 cases in Division
bench) and disposes 35 cases (31 own cases + 4 Division bench) in a month. If
devotion of 15 days for hearing
of the case in a month by Mr. Patnaik is taken into
account, Sri Patnaik hears only 10 cases per
day and disposes only 2 cases in a day.
average, Sri L.N.Patnaik, SIC hears 162 cases (132 own cases + 30 cases in Division
bench) and disposes 35 cases (31 own cases + 4 Division bench) in a month. If
devotion of 15 days for hearing
of the case in a month by Mr. Patnaik is taken into
account, Sri Patnaik hears only 10 cases per
day and disposes only 2 cases in a day.
b. Sashi Bindhani hears 175 cases ( 145 own case + 30 cases in
Division) per month and
disposes 31 cases ( 27 own + 4 cases in division bench) per month.
If 15 days is taken into account
for hearing of the case in a month, then
Smt. Bindhani hears only 11 cases
and disposes only two cases in a day.
Division) per month and
disposes 31 cases ( 27 own + 4 cases in division bench) per month.
If 15 days is taken into account
for hearing of the case in a month, then
Smt. Bindhani hears only 11 cases
and disposes only two cases in a day.
It needs to be noted here that Maharashtra Chief
Information commissioner is disposing around 5000 cases in a year. It means disposing 419 cases in a month. Similarly
Central Information Commissioner is disposing each around 3300 cases in a year.
But Odisha Information Commissioners are
disposing just around 350 cases in a year.
Information commissioner is disposing around 5000 cases in a year. It means disposing 419 cases in a month. Similarly
Central Information Commissioner is disposing each around 3300 cases in a year.
But Odisha Information Commissioners are
disposing just around 350 cases in a year.
3. Penalty:
Within one
year of their functioning, while Sri L.N.Patnaik, SIC has imposed penalty
against erring PIO in 23 cases, Smt. Bindhani, SIC imposes penalty on a single
case and Division Bench has imposed penalty in PIOs in four cases which is less
than four percent of total cases disposed by them in which RTI Act was violated and the
information denied. The penalty has been
imposed on lower level functionaries like clerks, Cashier, PEO etc.
year of their functioning, while Sri L.N.Patnaik, SIC has imposed penalty
against erring PIO in 23 cases, Smt. Bindhani, SIC imposes penalty on a single
case and Division Bench has imposed penalty in PIOs in four cases which is less
than four percent of total cases disposed by them in which RTI Act was violated and the
information denied. The penalty has been
imposed on lower level functionaries like clerks, Cashier, PEO etc.
4.
Compensation
Compensation
Both the
Information Commissioners have not awarded any compensation under section 19
(8b) to any aggrieved Citizen who had
filed the cases after taking a lot of pains and hardships.
Information Commissioners have not awarded any compensation under section 19
(8b) to any aggrieved Citizen who had
filed the cases after taking a lot of pains and hardships.
5.
Pendency
Pendency
Around 5000
cases are pending in the commission for disposal since 3 years. But this figure is doubtful.
cases are pending in the commission for disposal since 3 years. But this figure is doubtful.
6.
Language of the Decision
Language of the Decision
Mrs. Sashi
Bindhani is very poor in writing English language used in the content of the decisions. Let me
refer content of decision of a SA No.- 885/2014-
Bindhani is very poor in writing English language used in the content of the decisions. Let me
refer content of decision of a SA No.- 885/2014-
“ the Appellant
has filed the Second Appeal
memorandum on 9.4.2014 alleging that
the information sought from the
PIO, O/0 the Chief District
Medical Officer, Balasore through his RTI Application dated 15.11.2013 in spite of filling
of first appeal petition dated 16.12.2013”. Does this sentence
carry any meaning at all?
has filed the Second Appeal
memorandum on 9.4.2014 alleging that
the information sought from the
PIO, O/0 the Chief District
Medical Officer, Balasore through his RTI Application dated 15.11.2013 in spite of filling
of first appeal petition dated 16.12.2013”. Does this sentence
carry any meaning at all?
(Prepared by Pradip Pradhan,
M-9937843482,Date- 14.8.16)
M-9937843482,Date- 14.8.16)
