It takes RTI Act to trace missing files

[karira]

As reported by Neha Shukla of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 12 August 2008:
It takes RTI Act to trace missing files-Lucknow-Cities-The Times of India

It takes RTI Act to trace missing files

LUCKNOW: It might be all gone with the 'missing’ files. The details about allotment of a three 'bigha' of gram sabha land, worth approximately Rs 10 crore in present times, to an institute called 'dastkari haat samiti' in village Ganeshpur Rahmanpur (Chinhat), tehsil-Sadar, Lucknow, might not be known. The information about the so-called missing files has now been disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A letter dated December 31, 2007, addressed by the then district magistrate of Lucknow to the State Information Commission (SIC) had mentioned that files related to the reclamation of land in village Ganeshpur Rahmanpur in favour of lekhpal training school and dastkari haat samiti were sent to the office of Lok Ayukta but they had not been returned yet. DM had also stated that a letter had been sent to secretary, Lok Ayukta, UP government. However, in a missive shot off as a response to DM's letter, secretary, Lok Ayukta, had mentioned that file nos A-120 and A-121 had been returned. The said files, however, are still to be traced.

The gram sabha records of 1993 show that the land was allotted to the above mentioned institute - dastkari haat samiti - which carried a New Delhi address. "I pursued gram sabha records and came across this information but district administration has not shown the file regarding this allotment,” said Izhar Ansari, who had filed an application with land management section under the RTI Act on May 22, 2005, seeking inspection of the file concerned.

The case was disposed off by SIC. It has been more than two years now but the applicant is yet to see the files.

In an application filed with the opposite party, applicant had sought inspection of two files related to land reclamation. The said files included file no 105/A/DLRC/93-94 and those related to the allotment of land to dastkari haat samiti in Chinhat locality of Lucknow. The 'opposite party', in this case, comprised Yogesh Kumar Shukla, public information officer (PIO) and additional district magistrate (ADM), Alka Verma, additional SDM and in charge, land management section and district magistrate/appellate authority, Lucknow.

While he was shown file no 105/A/DLRC/93-94, the file related to the samiti was not shown to Ansari. The reason extended by PIO was that the said file was not with him but with the Lok Ayukta office. The appellant then filed his appeal with the first appellate authority on July 4, 2006 which was disposed of on August 22, 2006 by the then district magistrate/appellate authority, Lucknow, Ramendra Tripathi.

The order by the first appeal authority contained reference to the letter of officer incharge (land management) dated August 7, 2006, which stated that the said file was pending with the Lok Ayukta office. The order upheld the letter and also mentioned that the appellant had been informed about the same.

The applicant in his appeal had sought penalising of the PIO and officer incharge land management section, besides disciplinary action against them.

However, in one of the first speaking orders issued by SIC on July 24 this year, the copy of which was handed over to the applicant in the matter, on Monday, SIC has directed the opposite party to show the file to the applicant as and when it is traced.

"The order does not fix any time limit for searching and producing the file and if all PIOs cite similar reasons where will the Act go,” said the applicant.