Solapur district collector Manisha Varma decided to conduct a random check of some muster rolls of villagers who were given work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and many a skeleton came out.
Several prima facie false entries were detected. Wages were seen disbursed to people who were dead and gone, people who did not belong to the village. People who never sought seasonal employment under the Scheme.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. This was just one district and a couple of villages and the amount of misappropriated funds prima facie runs into several crores of rupees. EGS works are taken up by different departments throughout the state in hundreds of villages. Do we have to wait for a conscientious pro-active district collector to conduct a check of every work to detect any leakage of funds. Shouldn’t there be any institutional mechanism whereby people should have an access to such documents?
Several months before Collector Varma pro-actively decided to scrutinise the muster rolls of works carried out in her district under the EGS by the Agriculture Department, in January this year to be precise, Shivaji Raut, the indefatigable user of the law on the right to information sought copies of muster rolls of EGS works carried out in his Satara district by the Forest Department. The requisition was flatly turned down.
Raut demanded from the Assistant Conservator of Forests in Satara, who also functions as the Public Information Officer for the department in Satara, to have copies of pay sheets and muster rolls of various works carried out by the Forest in the district in just two months - February and March 2004.
A seasoned user of the Maharashtra Right to Information (MRTI) Act, 2002, Raut knew the information sought was not voluminous enough to cause any ‘‘unwarranted diversion of the resources’’ of the Forest office and liable to be rejected under Section 8 of the Act.
He sought the information just for two months -and that too, recent months. He was not asking the Forest office to dig through some old records.
He was asking for mere photocopies of the documents. Surely, the number of documents would have been several hundred but then taking photocopies of easily retrievable documents, numbering maybe a few hundred, is not ‘‘unwarranted diversion of resources’’ of the government office. He wasn’t asking for heaps of documents pertaining to a long period of say two years.
Raut also knew that no exclusion clause in the Act prohibited ‘‘disclosure’’ of this information. It had to be given.
Yet, the public information officer in his wisdom rejected the requisition and demanded to know from Raut ‘‘the purpose of seeking the information’’. He also contended that Raut’s requisition was vague and he had not spelt out in which format he wanted the information.
The officer, however, generously invited Raut for a discussion and clarification on his requisition.
Raut chose not to respond. It was obvious that the information sought could have just be given in the format of photocopies of documents. There was nothing to explain further.
Secondly, the information law does not empower a public information officer to examine the ‘‘purpose of seeking information’’ and decide whether or not to disclose it.
Taking this as the rejection, Raut therefore filed an appeal with the appellate authority -the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Satara.
In the meantime, the public information, probably having received some advice on the illegality of his rejection, sent another letter - this time giving different set of reasons for rejection:
1. Thatcopies of the muster rolls cannot be given to any citizen under Bombay Forest Rules.
2. Thatmuster rolls are not ‘documents’ as defined in the Maharshtra Right to Information Act.
3. That the information sought is voluminous, running into four to five thousand pages.
The PIO probably had not received a sound advice.
The Information Act is a superior and its provisions over-ride similar or conflicting provisions in any other Acts or rules. So forest officials have to forget whatever has been prescribed in the rules on sharing copies of muster rolls with citizens.
Muster roll is very much an information that can be sought under the information.
Despite these clear provisions, even the appellate authority rejected the appeal and endorsed his junior officer’s decision not to give Raut copies of the muster roll.
Raut filed the second appeal with the Lokayukta who rejected the contention of the forest department that muster rolls are not ‘documents’and therefore cannot be shared with citizens. He directed the forest officials to reconsider their rejection.
Back in Satara, forest officials have now changed their stance. They called Raut to inspect records of the EGS works and ask for copies of documents he desires to have for closer scrutiny.
After seven months of efforts, a citizen finally has succeeded in having an access to pay sheets of the Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Things are going to change soon. The national Right to Information Act is all set to be replace the Maharashtra Right to Information Act from October 13, under which citizen will not only continue to have the unarguable right to demand copies of muster rolls of all works including those under the Employment Guarantee Works, but the authorities will be under obligation to periodically publish these details pro-actively without waiting for an activist to ask for copies under the access to information law.
That is not enough. As for muster rolls under the Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Rural Employment Guarantee Bill now before the Parliament has a provision that copies of the muster rolls will be made available for inspection by people at the gram panchayat office and that of the project officer.
In ideal situation, Raut’s should be the last requisition under the RTI Act for copies of muster rolls of official works. Hereafter, people will be demanding to know from heads of departments why these rolls were not made pro-actively made available to citizens.
Right to Information Act, 2005, of the Government of India which will come in force from October 13 for all offices and agencies of the central as well as the state governments defines ‘‘right to information’ as:
‘Right to information’’ means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under control of any public authority and includes the right to -
i)inspection of work, documents, records;
ii)taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
iii)taking certified samples of material;
iv)obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
‘‘Information’’ means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
‘‘Record’’ means
a)any document, manuscript and file;
b)any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
c)any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
d)any other material produced by a computer or any other device;
‘‘Public authority’’ means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted -
a)by or under the Constitution;
b)by any other law made by Parliament;
c)by any other law made by State Legislature;
d)by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Governmentand includes any -
i)body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
ii)non-Government organization substantially financed,directly or indirectly by funds by the appropriate Government.
‘‘Appropriate government’’ means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly -
i)by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, (and) the Central Government;
ii)by the State Government, (and) the state government.
Extracts of provisions under the national right to information law on pro-active dissemination of information by the government and its agencies:
Right to information and obligations of public authorities
Section 4 (1) Every public authority shall -
b) publish within 120 days from the enactment of this Act, -
v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursement made;
xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorization granted by it;
pmkardaley@expressidia.com