As reported by Shyam Sunder Roy in thestatesman.net on 10 December 2009:
The Statesman

Information gone wrong

MIDNAPORE, 10 DEC: The West Information Commission seems to be blowing hot and cold over issuing orders regarding the Right to Information (RTI) application by a teacher of Vidyasagar University (VU), made in connection with the selection of a professor in the department of anthropology at the University.

The chief information commissioner, Mr Arun Bhattacharya, hasn’t yet penalised the public information officer (PIO) of the VU, though the latter had violated the RTI Act 2005 by not supplying information to the VU teacher, Dr Abhijit Guha, from the anthropology department, within the stipulated period of 30 days. Mr Guha had submitted an application to the PIO on 17 November 2008 seeking three documents. But the PIO neither replied to the application nor forwarded any reason for the delay, within the stipulated period, as specified under the RTI Act.

This again testifies the low ranking of the West Bengal commission in terms of public satisfaction over implementation of the RTI Act. It should be recalled that in a nation-wide survey conducted by Public Cause Research Foundation it was revealed that an applicant from West Bengal has 6 per cent chance of getting information from the state information commission against 52 per cent in Kerala, highest in the country. In West Bengal, the inept handling of the applications seeking information under RTI, is evident. Mr Bhattacharya's behaviour of not penalising the PIO despite the fact that he did not furnish any information to Mr Guha within 30 days, is symbolic of the general un-professionalism that is rampant among government officers regarding implementation of RTI Act. The successive orders issued by the chief commissioner, one on 15 July 2009 and another on 23 November 2009, over Dr Guha’s RTI application, clearly proves the “inconsistent and contradictory” nature of these orders. The chief commissioner asked the PIO and the Appeallate Authority (AA) of the VU to furnish their views with respect to Dr Guha’s application. The AA of VU stated that “the matter is sub-judice and all necessary papers/documents will be placed before the court.”

But brushing aside the AA’s explanation, the chief commissioner categorically stated in unequivocal words in point No. 4 in his first order, dated 15 July that “in this case, nothing has been produced before the commission for it to conclude that the court has expressly forbidden the disclosure of such information as requested for by Dr Guha nor that the disclosure of such information would constitute contempt of court.”

But strangely in a volte-face, the chief commissioner, Mr Bhhattacharya in his second order, dated 23 November, mentioned that “since the High Court has already seized of the issue, the commission refuses to pass any further order regarding the disclosure of information sought by Dr Guha." Whereas the 15 July order held out some hope for Mr Guha, the 23 November response, crashed it. This contradiction, rather inconsistnency, in the two orders, within a four-month gap, hints at the possibility that Mr Bhattacharya might have been influenced by some quarters.

However, when contacted, the chief information commissioner, Mr Bhattacharya denied these suspicions as baseless. He claimed that the orders issued on 15 July and 23 November were neither contradictory nor was he influenced by any group.

Similar Threads which you may be interested into: