Are you a citizen of India wondering about the rules governing government property, like how it’s allotted or cancelled? Many Indians face situations where they need clarity on such matters, especially concerning housing or other government-owned assets. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers you to seek this information. This article delves into a significant RTI case that highlights how citizens can use the Act to get crucial information about government property rules, and what happens when public authorities fail to provide it promptly.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In a particular RTI application, a citizen sought to understand the rules and guidelines related to the allotment and cancellation of government property. This is vital information for anyone dealing with government accommodations or assets. The applicant wanted to know the precise procedures and the legal framework governing these processes. The RTI application was initially sent to the Directorate of Estates, a key authority responsible for managing central government properties across India.
How the Public Authority Responded
The response from the public authorities in this case was far from satisfactory. The PIO of the Directorate of Estates, instead of providing the requested information, merely forwarded the application to another office. This action, often termed as an “unnecessary transfer” of an application, is a common tactic used Public Information Officers (PIOs) to avoid their responsibility under the RTI Act. The PIO (HQ), Bangalore, provided some partial information but directed the applicant to the Directorate of Estates in New Delhi for the rest, claiming it was a matter of policy. This approach caused significant delays and frustration for the applicant.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) due to the lack of proper response and the significant delay. The PIOs from the Directorate of Estates, the Office of the Director General (Works), and the Chief Engineer, Bangalore, were issued show-cause notices for personal hearings before any penalty could be imposed. During the hearing, the PIOs argued that they had made efforts to contact the appellant to ascertain the specific area or locality for which the information was sought. However, the CIC found this argument unconvincing. The Commission pointed out that the RTI application was clearly seeking general rules and guidelines, not information specific to a particular location. The CIC emphasized that the rules for allotment and cancellation of government properties are framed Directorate of Estates, which is the principal authority, and they should possess this knowledge.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC rejected the arguments put forth respondents. The Commission highlighted that the Directorate of Estates, being the central authority for government properties, cannot claim ignorance of the rules governing allotment and cancellation. Furthermore, the respondents’ claim of not being aware of rules regarding who bears the cost of electricity outages during renovations of occupied government accommodation was also dismissed. The RTI application was filed on October 13, 2010, but the information was finally provided to the appellant only on January 25, 2012. This represented a delay of a staggering 385 days. For this inordinate delay and failure to provide information as per the RTI Act, the CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,500/- each on the PIO of the Directorate of Estates and the PIO of SW III, Bangalore. This was the maximum penalty that could be imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act for such a significant delay.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: Even when faced with uncooperative PIOs or unnecessary transfers, it is crucial to pursue your RTI request. The CIC’s intervention in this case shows that justice can be achieved.
- Lesson 2: Understand Information Availability: PIOs cannot claim ignorance of rules and policies that fall under their domain. If the information pertains to general guidelines or policies of the department, they are obligated to provide it.
- Lesson 3: Delays Attract Penalties: The RTI Act mandates that information should be provided within 30 days (or 35 days for matters concerning the life and liberty of an individual). Significant delays, as seen in this case, can lead to penalties for the concerned PIOs under Section 20 of the Act.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is responsible for the information you need. For government property rules, the Directorate of Estates or relevant housing department would be a starting point.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request precisely. Mention the specific rules, guidelines, or procedures you wish to know.
- Submit Your Application: Pay the requisite RTI fee and submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority.
- Follow Up and Escalate if Necessary: If you don’t receive a response within the stipulated time, or if the response is unsatisfactory, you can file a First Appeal (under Section 19 of the RTI Act) and subsequently a Second Appeal to the CIC.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the complete set of rules and guidelines currently in force regarding the allotment and cancellation of government residential properties managed department. Also, please provide details on who is responsible for the costs associated with electricity outages during renovation or maintenance of occupied government accommodation.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a potent tool for citizens to hold public authorities accountable and access vital information. Don’t be deterred bureaucratic hurdles. your rights and the provisions of the RTI Act, you can effectively seek information about government property rules and ensure transparency and accountability in governance.
