Glasnost glare on gifts galore

SUMAN K. SHRIVASTAVA
The Telegraph, August 11, 2006
Ranchi, Aug. 10: What is secret about gifts distributed by departments to MLAs and journalists during different sessions of the Assembly? An appeal has been filed before the State Information Commission, one of the four appeals filed so far, challenging the Assembly’s decision to deny the information sought by the petitioner.
The petitioner, Shakti Pandey, had sought details of gifts and the cost incurred on them by different departments. Departments have traditionally been distributing gifts to MLAs and reporters covering the Assembly for decades. But this is the first time information had been sought about the gifts and the cost under the Right to Information Act.
The Assembly secretariat, however, refused to divulge the details. Nor did it oblige Pandey when he sought to find out the procedures adopted by the Assembly while allotting shops on the Assembly premises and funds generated through such allotment.
Pandey has now appealed to the SIC and a member of the commission confirmed that a notice would be issued to the Assembly secretary, as the commission has found the grounds cited by the Assembly to withhold information unacceptable. The outcome will go a long way in setting a benchmark in ensuring transparency, the member hoped.
Another appeal has been filed by a journalist, Vishnu Rajgarhia, denied information by the law department on a case transferring 140 acres of land in Deoghar and two houses in Calcutta belonging to Manorama Trust to a family. In this case also, the commission, after a meeting, decided to serve a notice to the law department. Ironically, the then law secretary, Ram Bilas Gupta, who had denied the information to Rajgarhia, happens to be one of the members of the Information Commission.
Rajgarhia claims that one Shibmoy Banerjee had gifted his property in the 60s in the name of his family deity. His three sons, however, contested the case in Calcutta High Court, which ordered the state government to appoint an arbitrator to decide the issue. Chairman of the Religious Trust Board, Rajgarhia alleged, designated himself as the arbitrator and pronounced the judgement in favour of the sons.
The chairman, Lal Rajendranath Shahdeo, however, rubbished the charges and claimed that the plot was transferred in view of an order passed by Calcutta High Court.
In yet another appeal, an engineer posted in the water resources department, Arun Kumar, has sought to know the procedures followed in transferring him to the urban development department and the latter’s subsequent refusal to accept him on the ground that no suitable post was available. Kumar had challenged his transfer in the high court but his petition was dismissed after an affidavit was filed by the state government. The engineer has now exercised the Right to Information Act to find out if the statements made in the affidavit are genuine.