Are you struggling to get clear information about government schemes, especially those related to industrial development and exports? Many citizens face delays and confusion when trying to access crucial details from public authorities. This case highlights how a seemingly straightforward RTI application can get caught in a bureaucratic maze, but also demonstrates the power of the RTI Act to eventually bring clarity. If you’re an entrepreneur, a business owner, or simply a concerned citizen wanting to understand how government initiatives like the Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) scheme function, this article will guide you through a real-life RTI scenario and the lessons learned.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The heart of this case lies in an RTI application filed with the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, specifically targeting the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) and the Department of Commerce (DoC). The applicant was seeking vital documents related to the Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) scheme. This included an approved copy of the Project Proposal and the Master Plan for EPIP. Beyond these core documents, the applicant also had several other related queries, indicating a deep interest in understanding the operational aspects and approvals of this scheme.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) was a complete silence – no reply was provided to the RTI application. This lack of response is a common issue faced applicants and can be frustrating. Following this non-response, the matter escalated to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the Department of Commerce. The FAA, upon reviewing the case, made a significant observation: the EPIP Scheme, originally handled , had been subsumed into a new scheme called Assistance to States for Infrastructure Development of Exports (ASIDE) Scheme, managed Department of Commerce. While this provided some clarity on the scheme’s current administrative home, the FAA also noted that if the information wasn’t with the Department of Commerce, the PIO should have transferred the application to the correct department. The FAA directed the PIO of the Department of Commerce to provide a proper reply to the applicant. Meanwhile, when the PIO of the Department of Commerce forwarded the application to the PIO of DIPP, the latter responded that it was difficult to confirm if the EPIP Scheme was ever allocated to their department and requested proof of prior allocation.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The case eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the proceedings, the PIO from DIPP stated that the EPIP Scheme was actually being handled Department of Commerce. In contrast, the PIO from the Ministry of Commerce reiterated that the EPIP Scheme from DIPP had indeed been subsumed into the ASIDE Scheme launched Department of Commerce. They also clarified that the specific EPIP projects were not listed among those funded in Assam under the ASIDE Scheme. The appellant informed the CIC that their RTI application had been forwarded to the Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) for a response, and while they received copies of internal memos, no direct answers to their queries were provided.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the documents, observed that the appellant had not received the necessary information from either the PIOs of DIPP or the Department of Commerce. Recognizing the mishandling of the RTI application and the lack of a clear response, the CIC took a decisive step. They remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Authority of the Department of Commerce. The directive was for a fresh, de-novo consideration of the appellant’s appeal. The FAA was instructed to ensure that the appellant receives the requisite information. Crucially, the CIC also stated that if the Department of Commerce did not possess the information, the concerned PIO should be directed to obtain and provide it to the appellant. This order emphasizes that the responsibility to provide information ultimately lies with the public authority, even if it requires inter-departmental coordination.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: When faced with non-response or inaccurate information, don’t give up. Escalate your case through the First Appellate Authority and then to the Central Information Commission (CIC) if necessary. The RTI Act provides a clear path for grievance redressal.
- Lesson 2: Understand Departmental Jurisdictions: Schemes can be transferred between departments or subsumed into new ones. While it’s not your primary job to know this, being aware that this happens can help you understand potential reasons for initial confusion from PIOs. The PIO’s duty under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is to transfer your application to the relevant public authority if they don’t hold the information.
- Lesson 3: Be Specific in Your Application: While the applicant in this case was specific, always try to frame your questions as clearly as possible. If you are asking about a particular scheme, mention its full name and any relevant identifying details you might have. This helps the PIO pinpoint the information you need and reduces the chances of the application being wrongly handled.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Research which ministry or department is responsible for the scheme you are interested in. If unsure, you can initially address it to the nodal department or the Ministry of Commerce & Industry as a starting point.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your name, address, and contact details. Clearly mention the specific information you seek, referencing the scheme name and any relevant documents (like project proposals, master plans, guidelines, fund allocation details, etc.).
- Pay the Application Fee: The fee is usually ₹10, payable through postal order, demand draft, or cash.
- Submit and Follow Up: Submit your application to the PIO of the concerned public authority. Keep a copy for your records. If you don’t receive a response within 30 days (or 35 days if the PIO is outside the jurisdiction), file a First Appeal.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the approved Project Proposal and Master Plan for the Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) scheme, along with details of its implementation guidelines and any recent amendments or subsuming into other schemes.
Conclusion
This case underscores that while bureaucratic hurdles exist, the Right to Information Act is a powerful tool for citizens to demand accountability and transparency. The CIC’s intervention ensured that the appellant’s right to information was upheld, even after initial delays and misdirection. the RTI process and being persistent, you can navigate similar challenges and access the information you need from government departments, fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry.
