At Pune’s headquarters of the food supply department, the tehsildar is ignorant, even arrogant about proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act

Since the last one week, I have been following up with the Food Supply office of the Punedistrict collectorate to gather information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. I am seeking information on the number of shopkeepers, in two particular zones, where women have complained that they have not been getting their rightful food grains, sugar and kerosene under the Public Distribution System (PDS) scheme, since several months and years.
 

While the newly launched Food Security Bill (FSB) has already run into controversy with a leading TV news channel portraying how wheat under this scheme is already being diverted into the open market in Delhi. The PDS scam has been going on brazenly for last several decades. Since no political leader or officer at any level bothers to address this issue, the PDS scam is a perennial news story for a journalist and perennial campaign for an activist.
 

Last week, the public information officer (PIO) of one of the zones of the food supplyoffice in Pune was totally ignorant about Section 4 of the RTI Act itself. As mentioned inmy last week’s column, she relented to give information after I educated her on Section 4. I had asked for information between 1 January 2012 and 30 September 2013, month wise, of the supply of wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene to the shopkeepers that fall under her zone.
 

However, the next day, when I went to collect the information, she proudly said that she had promptly bought a book of the RTI Act, which I appreciated. However, her next statement was that, “You have wrongly said you can get information instantly under Section 4. It is only under Section 7 that you can get information in 48 hours.’’ So, another round of explanation had to be done.”
 

I told her that the information I require comes under 11, 12, 13 sub-sections of the Section 4 of RTI Act. These states:
 

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all pans, proposed expenditures and reports o disbursements made; 
 

(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy, 
 

(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it. She nodded in agreement.
 

The issue of my inspecting files under Sec 4 of the RTI Act, triggered off last fortnight after some women in a chawl in Bhavani Peth expressed their agony. However, on a visit to another chawl in Yerawada, I found that the women there too had a similar complaint. Hence, I decided to gather information of supply to all the eight zones from the food supply headquarters.
 

The PIO there asked me to meet the Tehsildar who heads the department. When I told her what I wanted, she got aggressive and said this information is not available here and that I would have to visit each of the eight zones to get it. I argued that being the headquarters, information on supplies to shopkeepers in all eight zones, must be made available here itself. In fact, it should have been posted on the website www.pune.gov.in . In any case, even if it is on the website, it is mandatory for the public authority to provide the information if a citizen visits it and demands it in the form of hard copies. She argued, “Yes, of course, it is all there on the website’’ and summoned the PIO to her cabin. The PIO muttered that it is in some other website and gave me the link – Egrains.nic.in/sinc. I checked the website but it does not seem a relevant one.
 

She then continued that it is not possible to keep such vast information in her office. I said it is her duty to upload it in the public domain. I gave her an example that if I require information about accidents from 10 different police stations under RTI, then I should get it at the headquarters of the traffic department and I, as a citizen, do not have to run from one police station to another. When she tried to be adamant despite my explanation, I told her that I would file a complaint with the State Information Commissioner in Pune as this amounts to denying information. She said OK to prove her point but then relented and asked the PIO to give the entire information. I would be collecting the documents on Thursday. Here too, the PIO insisted on Rs10 court fee stamp with a request letter for the information. I again had to explain to him that you need the court fee stamp only if you ask information under Section 6. He smiled.
 

My point is, even after eight years of the RTI Act, should a citizen be fighting it out to get his or her rightful information under Section 4 of the RTI Act? If this is the treatment given to a seasoned journalist/activist, then one can imagine what a common person is going through. The reason for this personal narration is to inspire citizens to visit offices to get the information they need and not be cowed down by excuses or arrogance of officers. Please read Section 4 carefully; if required take a printout of it when you visit the office. Share your experiences with Moneylife. I would be happy to answer your difficulties.