Right to inaction: GPCB ignores obligation to provide information under RTI Act

An RTI application filed in the Gujarat Pollution Control Board seeking details about all the RTI applications filed in GPCB till August 31, 2008.

An RTI application filed in the Gujarat Pollution Control Board GPCB seeking details about all the RTI applications filed in GPCB till August 31, 2008 and the responses given to them, has thrown light on how the Act has been dishonoured

Mahesh Pandya of Paryavaran Mitra, the organisation which filed the RTI, said: 8220;We had filed more than 50 RTI applications with GPCB, but their response was shocking. Neither was the stipulated 30 day time limit followed nor the information supplied was correct. It was inadequate, false and misleading. In some cases, GPCB took 2 years to reply to our RTI pleas. So, to trace a pattern, we asked them to tell us about all the RTIs filed and their responses to them. The facts are now out in the public domain.8221;

A close examination of the GPCB reply raises several issues. As per GPCB, it has received 85 RTI applications during the above mentioned time period. In 25 of them, the appellate authority has provided information after the expiry of the stipulated period of 45 days. Section 19 of the RTI Act clearly enlists the procedure for appeal if the information supplied by the Information Officer is deemed inadequate. 8220;Since the law is silent on the penalty if the appellate authority delays the reply, GPCB has exploited it to the maximum. Also, the RTI replies do not mention where to appeal if the applicant is not satisfied with the appellate authority8217;s response, creating further confusion,8221; said Pandya.

GPCB has also disallowed 10 RTI applications, without specifying any reason, in direct contrast to section 10 of the RTI Act. Another major issue concerns the provision for providing third party information under sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act. Paryavaran Mitra alleges that GPCB has rejected several RTI pleas under the garb of 8216;third party information8217;.

8220;In some cases, we have observed that even before seeking a mandatory submission by the third party for the disclosure of information, GPCB has rejected RTI pleas. The Gujarat High Court has recently interpreted section 11 of the RTI Act, but the ambiguity still remains,8221; Pandya added.