Implementation Audit: Karnataka Right to Information Act

Transcription

1

2 Implementation Audit: Karnataka Right to Information Act Background The Right to Information (RTI) today i univerally acknowledged a a fundamental human right, effectively contributing to the promotion of tranparency, accountability and public participation in governance - the three key ingredient for Good Governance a defined by the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). India ha the ditinction of being among one of the few nation in the world to have enacted a national legilation on the Right to Information 1. Karnataka i one of the tate that took the initiative to enact it own RTI legilation while the Central Act wa till in the making. The Karnataka Right to Information Act (KRIA) wa enacted in 2000, and came into effect in July 2002 when the Karnataka Right to Information Rule were notified. Depite ome of it lacunae, KRIA doe provide reaonable cope to et in place a ytem through which citizen can eaily acce information that they want from the government. KRIA cat many obligation on public authoritie and thee are a follow: All public authoritie mut have a Competent Authority to deal with requet for information under KRIA. Once a requet i received and if information i being provided, the applicant mut be informed of the fee payable for the information within 7 day from date of application. Information mut be provided within 15 working day from date of fee payment If information i being denied, the applicant mut be informed of reaon for denial within 15 working day from date of application. In cae of delay or if information provided i fale, the applicant can appeal to a deignated appellate authority, a econd appeal lie with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In cae of delay or if fale information i provided a penalty of upto R 2000 can be levied on the Competent Authority. In addition, all office of public authoritie are required to diplay the following information on notice board outide their office: - particular of the organization, it function and dutie. - power and dutie of the officer and employee and procedure followed by them in deciion-making. - norm et up by the public authority for carrying out it function - detail of facilitie available to citizen for obtaining information. A comparion of RTI legilation acro the country how that KRIA i a relatively progreive legilation. The real tet however lie in the implementation of KRIA. With the realiation that unle KRIA genuinely erve the information need of the people it would amount to nothing. Public Affair Centre (PAC), Bangalore and Commonwealth Human Right Initiative (CHRI), New Delhi, embarked on a joint effort of to conduct the Implementation Audit of KRIA in November The idea behind the effort wa to ae the implementation of KRIA in Bangalore, and in doing o, generate valuable citizen feedback / recommendation that would be relayed to the government in order to improve ytem for effective implementation. With thee objectiv e in mind, PAC and CHRI brought together concerned citizen, orienting them on KRIA and the variou procedure involved in eeking information. In ecuring their participation in creating a demand for information, PAC and CHRI were able to galvanie civil ociety group into actively teting the efficacy of KRIA in Bangalore City. The Implementation Audit began with the training of volunteer, who then identified their information need and the public authoritie they wihed to approach for information. Care wa taken to file the application according to the procedure tipulated in KRIA, a thi would enable accurate aement of the operational efficacy of the law. Thi tudy i a reflection of the experience of ordinary citizen in their attempt at trying to ue KRIA in Bangalore. Twenty public authoritie were approached and 100 application were ubmitted between the period November 2002 and April The repone of the public authoritie ha been varied - ome have 1 The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 wa enacted in December 2002.

3 been proactive and other have been non-reponive. The agency factheet that follow provide a complete picture of thee public authoritie in the context of implementing KRIA. PAC and CHRI would like to thank the volunteer for their contribution, and the time and effort pent by them to make thi Implementation Audit of KRIA poible. We hope thee finding provide the neceary feedback to variou public authoritie in order to enable them to put in place ytem to effectively implement the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 which i acknowledged to be one of the progreive law on the topic in the Country. IS RIGHT TO INFORMATION WORKING IN BANGALORE? The imple quetion thi implementation audit eek to anwer i thi: i right to information working in Bangalore? The aement of the public authoritie approached wa focued on eeing if thee bodie were implementing their obligation a enviaged in the law. It mut be tated at the very outet that the finding of the urvey are not a reflection on the working of the public authoritie a a whole. The finding are baed entirely on experience of volunteer in the coure of their interaction with the variou public authoritie in trying to acce information. The number of application filed to the variou public authoritie varied with the information need of the volunteer. It i for thi reaon that the BMP ha received 49 application for information and a body like Department of Energy or Department of Employment and Training have received only 1. The criterion for aement are reponivene, le reponive and leat reponive. a) Reponive : When the public authority implement the law by Diplaying of notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under the law. Providing information within the tipulated time limit. Follow the procedure enviaged in the law. b) Le reponive: - When the public authority: Accept application and provided information only after conitent follow-up by the applicant. Doe not provide information within the tipulated time limit. Doe not diplay notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under the law. c) Non reponive:- When the public authority Accept application and it on it. Doe not maintain a record of application received Diplaying of notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under the law. The following heet contain fact heet of pecific public authoritie a well a cumulative fact heet for all public authoritie that were approached.

4 Aement of Public Authoritie: Sl.No. Public Authority Aement 1. Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Inactive 2. Bangalore Development Authority Reponive 3. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Reponive 4. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Reponive 5. Slum Clearance Board Tentative 6. Bangalore Metropolitan Tranport Corporation Inactive 7. Pollution Control Board Inactive 8. Tranport Commiioner' Office Inactive 9. Urban Development Inactive 10. Regitrar of Societie Inactive 11. Public Work Department Inactive 12. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commiion Reponive 13. Department of Education Inactive 14. Department of Legal Metrology Inactive 15. Directorate of Employment & Training Tentative 16. Lok Ayukta Reponive 17. Police Inactive 18. Karnataka Power Tranmiion Company Ltd Tentative 19. Energy Department Inactive 20. Food and Civil Supplie Department Tentative Reponive When the public authority implement the law by: Diplaying notice board with information required to be dicloed voluntarily under the law Providing information and in mot cae within the tipulated time limit, but in cae of delay keep the applicant informed. Follow the procedure enviaged in the law. Not all agencie that fall into the category of Reponive fulfill all apect of the criterion. For example the average time frame for receiving information from BWSSB i 1 month, The C.A i very approachable, firt all the information i collected and then letter are ent to the applicant and in ome cae call are made to inform them about the fee payable. On payment of fee information i furnihed immediately. In cae of KERC and Lok Ayukta only 1 application each ha been made, the interaction of the applicant wa poitive. KERC ha appointed a Public Information Officer in addition to the Competent Authority to interact with the public on information iue on a daily bai Tentative When the public authority implement the law by: Accept application but provided information only after continuou follow -up. Doe not provide information within the tipulated time limit. Doe not diplay notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under law Inactive When the public authority: Doe not accept application, When application are accepted, it on it. Doe not maintain a record of application received Doe not diplay notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under law

5 Sl. No Public Authority No. of Application Application Not Reponded to Application For which Information wa provided Application For which Information Wa Inadequate/ Irrelevant Denial Reaon For Denial Average Time Frame (day) Application Returned due to filing in wrong Department Fee Charged- Proce for Remittance Appeal Appeal heard and dipoed off Suo moto dicloure dilayed Reponivene and awarene 14 Legal 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive* Metrology 16 Directorate 1 Nil 1 Nil Nil Nil 40 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Tentative* of Employment & Training 17 Lok Ayukta 1 Nil 1 Nil Nil Nil 21 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Reponive 18 Police Attempted 1 Did not Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive*** accept 19 KPTCL 1 Nil 1 Nil Nil Nil 60 Nil Nil Nil Nil Ye Tentative* 20 Energy 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive* 21 Food & Civil Supplie 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Application Forwarded to Central Government Nil Nil Nil Nil Tentative* Criteria for aement of Public Authoritie: a) Reponive b) Tentative c) Inactive When the public authority implement the law by - Diplaying notice board with information required to be dicloed voluntarily under the law - Providing information in mot cae within tipulated time limit, but in cae of delay keep the applicant informed - Follow the procedure enviaged in the law. When the public authority: - Accept application but provided information only after continuou follow-up - Doe not provide information within the tipulated time limit. - Doe not diplay notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under law. * Even though the aement had been baed on a ingle application filed, the applicant had to interact with the public authority and engage in follow up, the reponivene i aeed i baed on thi interaction. ** KERC i termed reponive becaue the information i provided and they are etting up ytem to promote RTI by appointing a Public Information Officer in addition to a Competent Authority. *** Police ha been the only agency which did not accept an application When the public authority: - Accept application and it on it. - Doe not maintain a record of application received - Doe not diplay notice board containing the information required to be dicloed voluntarily under law PUBLIC AFFAIRS CENTRE, BANGALORE and COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE, NEW DELHI

6 Sl. No. Public Authority Finding of the IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002 Cumulative Public Authoritie Factheet Application Application Not Reponded to Application For which Information wa provided Application for which Information Wa inadequate / Irrelevant Denial Reaon For Denial Averag e Time frame (day) Application Returned due to filing in wrong Department Fee Charged- Proce for Remittanc e Appeal Appeal Heard and Dipoe d off Suo moto Dicloure Dilayed Reponivene And Awarene 1 BMP Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 15 Nil Nil Inactive 2 BDA Nil Nil 7 to 15 1 Nil 2 1 Nil Reponive 3 BWSSB Not Availabl e 30 Nil Paid by Potal order 1 Nil Ye- Detail of C.A Reponive 4 BESCOM Nil Nil 7 to 21 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Reponive 5 KSCB Nil Nil 40 Nil 1-nil; 1- Nil Nil Nil Tentative* R BMTC 3 3 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive 7 KSPCB 2 2 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Ni l Nil Nil Inactive 8 Tranport 2 2 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive 9 Commiioner Office Urban 2 2 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive 10 Development Regitrar of 2 2 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive Societie 11 PWD 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive* 12 KERC 1 Nil 1 Nil Nil Nil 20 Nil Paid by Nil Nil Nil Reponive** 13 Education 1 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Potal order Nil Nil Nil Nil Inactive* PUBLIC AFFAIRS CENTRE, BANGALORE and COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE, NEW DELHI

7 Bangalore Mahanagara Palike TOPIC HEAD DETAILS REQUIREMENTS UNDER KRIA No. of application 49 No. of application not 49 reponded to No. of application for which information wa provided No. of application for which information wa inadequate/ incomplete No. of denial Reaon for denial provided - Reaon for rejection mut be communicated in writing. - Period within which appeal can be made mut be informed - Detail of appellate authority hould be intimated. Time frame Have already - If information i being provided - fee to be violated tatutory intimated to applicant within 7 day. time frame by not reponding in all 49 - Information hould be provided/ rejected with reaon within 15 day from date of application cae. No. of application If application i made to a wrong C.A. it i the returned due to filing in wrong department C.A duty to forward it to the correct authority and inform the applicant of the ame. Fee charged proce - ince no R 5 per A4 ize page; for remittance repone to R 100 per floppy; application Map, plan etc a fixed by the authority. No. of Appeal 15 Appeal lie with the deignated Appellate authority, in thi cae the Special Commiioner. No. of appeal heard and dipoed of Other Comment: Implementation of Suo moto dicloure: Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in any of the BMP office informing them of detail of the Competent Authority and/or power,, function and dutie of that office. Awarene and reponivene of officer: The officer are aware that application under KRIA have to be accepted, but they do not repond to the application. In cae where volunteer have been involved in vigorou follow up, they have been informed that their application have been forwarded to relevant officer in the BMP. They have alo been told to now follow up with thoe relevant official and ome outward number have been provided to applicant a reference. Relevance of information provided: Since no information ha been provided, it i not poible to acce relevance at thi time.

8 Bangalore Development Authority TOPIC HEAD DETAILS REQUIREMENTS UNDER KRIA No. of application 14 No. of application not 6 reponded to No. of application for 7 which information wa provided No. of application for 4 which information wa inadequate/ incomplete No. of denial Reaon for denial provided - Reaon for rejection mut be communicated in writing. - Period within which appeal can be made mut be informed - Detail of appellate authority hould be intimated. Time frame Information ha been provided within 7-15 day No. of application returned due to filing in wrong department Fee charged proce for remittance - If information i being provided fee to be intimated to applicant within 7 day. - Information hould be provided/ rejected with reaon within 15 day from date of application 1 If application i made to a wrong C.A it i the C.A duty to forward it to the correct authority and inform the applicant of the ame. R 5 per A4 ize page; R 100 per floppy; Map, plan etc a fixed by the authority. No. of Appeal 2 1 t appeal Deignated appellate authority 2 nd appeal Karnataka Appellate Tribun al No. of appeal heard 1 information and dipoed of provided Other Comment: Implementation of Suo moto dicloure: Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in the BDA informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power,, function and dutie of that office. Awarene and reponivene of officer: The officer are reponive to the extent that application are accepted and information i promptly provided. The volunteer have had to follow up and there eem to be a dependency on one particular individual in the department if that PRO i not there, information i not provided. Relevance of information provided: In ome cae the information provided wa not a per the requet made. After information wa received, the applicant had to go back and eek the correct/ relevant information.

9 Bangalore Electricity Supply Company TOPIC HEAD DETAILS REQUIREMENTS UNDER KRIA No. of application 6 No. of application not reponded to No. of application for which information wa provided 3 of which 2 application were filed recently and repone i awaited, a tatutory time ha not laped. 3 No. of application for 1 which information wa inadequate/ incomplete No. of denial - Reaon for rejection mut be communicated in writing. - Period within which appeal can be made mut be informed - Detail of appellate authority hould be intimated. Reaon for denial - If information i being provided fee to be intimated to applicant within 7 day. - Information hould be provided/ rejected with reaon within 15 day from date of application Time frame No. of application returned due to filing in wrong department Fee charged proce for remittance On an average, information i provided between 7-21 day. If application i made to a wrong C.A it i the C.A duty to forward it to the correct authority and inform the applicant of the ame. R 5 per A4 ize page; R 100 per floppy; Map, plan etc a fixed by the authority. No. of Appeal 1 t appeal Deignated appellate authority 2 nd appeal Karnataka Appellate Tribunal No. of appeal heard and dipoed of Other Comment: Implementation of Suo moto dicloure: Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in BESCOM informing them of detail of the Competent Authoritie or power, function and dutie of that office. Awarene and reponivene of officer: The repone of the department ha been mixed - in ome cae the information ha been provided, in one cae officer refued to accept application without giving reaon. Comparatively peaking the repone time ha been poitive, even though the time limit precribed in the law are not trictly followed. Relevance of information provided: There have been no complaint on irrelevance of information from applicant who have received information but in one cae information provided wa not ufficient a per the requetor need. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board TOPIC HEAD DETAILS REQUIREMENTS UNDER KRIA application 11 application 2

10 not reponded to application for which information wa provided application for which information wa inadequate/ incomplete denial information provided wa not what the applicant aked for. 1applicant ha appealed for the proper information 1 Applicant aked for information that BWSSB did not maintain. The applicant wa told information would be made available when poible. Reaon for denial Information not available. - Reaon for rejection mut be communicated in writing. - Period within which appeal can be made mut be informed -Detail of appellate authority hould be intimated. Time frame Average time for providing information i 30 day. Information i collected, the applicant i informed the fee payable. Once fee are paid information i provided. application returned due to filing in wrong department Fee charged proce for remittance No. of Appeal No. of appeal heard and dipoed off The officer depatche letter aking for payment of fee by potal order. 1 - Appeal wa made ince the information provided wa not a per applicant requirement. -If information i being provided fee to be intimated to applicant within 7 day. - Information hould be provided/ rejected with reaon within 15 day from date of application If application i made to a wrong C.A it i the C.A duty to forward it to the correct authority and inform the applicant of the ame. R 5 per A4 ize page; R 100 per floppy; Map, plan etc a fixed by the authority. 1 t appeal Deignated appellate authority 2 nd appeal Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Other Comment: Implementation of Suo moto dicloure: Notice board with detail and function of the competent authority have been put up. Awarene and reponivene of officer: The department ha been very proactive, reponding to all the requet. In ome cae the concerned authority ha even called the applicant, informing them that their information i ready and aking them to come and collect it. Relevance of information provided: There ha been only one complaint of incomplete information being provided. Karnataka Slum Clearance Board TOPIC HEAD DETAILS REQUIREMENTS UNDER KRIA No. of application 4 No. of application not reponded to 2 No. of application for which information wa provided 2 application have been reponded to, where information ha been provided.

11 No. of application for which information wa inadequate/ incomplete No. of denial - Reaon for rejection mut be communicated in writing. - Period within which appeal can be made mut be informed - Detail of appellate authority hould be intimated. Reaon for denial Time frame No. of application returned due to filing in wrong department Fee charged proce for remittance In one cae information wa provided acro the counter on the ame day a application. In the other cae, contant follow-up wa required and information wa provided a month and a half later, which proved incomplete. No fee wa charged, except in one cae where the applicant wa aked to pay a fee of R If information i being provided fee to be intimated to applicant within 7 day. - Information hould be provided/ rejected with reaon within 15 day from date of application If app lication i made to a wrong C.A it i the C.A duty to forward it to the correct authority and inform the applicant of the ame. R 5 per A4 ize page; R 100 per floppy; Map, plan etc a fixed by the authority. No. of Appeal 1 t appeal Deignated appellate authority 2 nd appeal Karnataka Appellate Tribunal appeal heard and dipoed off Other Comment: Implementation of Suo moto dicloure: Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in the Slum Clearance board informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Awarene and reponivene of officer: Application are being accepted without much trouble, but the applicant i required to engage in vigorou follow up. Awarene level regarding the law and the procedure involved eem to be rather low. Relevance of information provided: In ome cae the information provided ha been incomplete, but on intimation by the applicant complete information wa ubequently provided.

12 Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Two application were made to the pollution control board, which were initially not accepted. Thi ituation ha changed after repeatedly approaching the department. Neither of the application ha been reponded to, and the time limit precribed under the law ha laped. One of the applicant ha appealed to the deignated Appellate Authority for information ince there ha been coniderable delay on the part of the Competent Authority. Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in any of the office of the KSPCB informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Bangalore Metropolitan Tranport Corporation Three application were made to the BMTC, none of which have been reponded to. In one cae, however, the application wa returned a the concerned official felt that the reaon for eeking information wa not clearly tated. Thi application wa re-ubmitted and accepted, but there ha been no official repone a yet. In all three cae, the tatutory time frame ha laped The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - the volunteer did not find any notice board in the BMTC office informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Tranport Commiioner Office Two application have been made to the Tranport Commiioner office, neither of which ha been reponded to. The tatutory time frame for repone ha laped. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented - not finding any notice board in the Tranport Commiioner office informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Karnataka Power Tranmiion Corporation Limited One application wa filed, which the concerned authority forwarded to the Under Secretary of the Energy department, and informed the applicant of the ame. The information wa provided within 2 month from the date of application - after the Energy department intructed KPTCL to provide the relevant information. It mut be tated here that thi i the only intance where the concerned authority forwarded an application to the relevant department and intimated the applicant of the ame, i.e. trictly according to the proviion laid down in the Act. In many cae, application have been rejected on the ground that applicant ha approached the wrong department wherea in reality, the law put the onu on tranferring the application to the correct department on the Competent Authority. KPTCL ha alo publicied it lit of Competent and Appellate Authoritie by placing advertiement in variou newpaper, thu adhering partially to the Suo moto requirement laid down in the Act. Public Work Department One application wa made on April 3, 2003 and no repone ha been received o far. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, a the volunteer did not find any notice board in the PWD office informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commiion One application wa filed on December 10, 2002 and information wa provided within a month of payment of fee by potal order. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented there were no notice board in the KERC informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office.

13 The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented there were no notice board in the KERC informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Department of Education One application wa filed in December 2002, aking for a copy of the affidavit filed by the Government of Karnataka regarding the midday meal programme in the Right to Food PIL filed by People Union for Civil Libertie. No reply ha been received o far. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, not finding any notice board in the Department of Education informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Department of legal metrology One application wa made in March aking for information regarding auto rickhaw and hop that had faulty meter. No reply ha been received o far. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, there being no notice board in the department of legal metrology informing them of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Social Welfare Department Information wa ought regarding fund pent on beggar relief and other related matter, for which the department provided detailed information. However, the applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, a he did not find any notice board in the Social Welfare Department with detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Regitrar of Societie Two application were made to the Regitrar of Societie in March 2003, for which information ha till not been provided. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, a there were no notice board in the Regitrar of Societie informing him of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Directorate of Employment and Training An application wa made on March 21, 2003 aking for information regarding the Citizen Charter of the department, a well a information regarding training programme and job application received from unemployed youth. Information wa provided 40 day from date of application. The applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented, there not being any notice board in the Directorate of Employment and Training informing him of detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Lok Ayukta One application wa filed regarding the tatu of a complaint made by the application againt the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The Lok Ayukta provided the relevant information within 21 day and no fee were charged. However, the applicant found that Suo moto dicloure are not being implemented there were no notice board in the Lok Ayukta with detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Police One volunteer tried to ubmit an application to the Police Department, but wa unucceful a lack of awarene about KRIA within the department reulted in great unwillingne to accept the application.

14 implemented, a he did not find any notice board in the Department of Energy providing detail of the Competent Authority or power, function and dutie of that office. Food and Civil Supplie One application wa filed with the department, the applicant wa informed that the application ha been forwarded to the central government, no repone ha been received ince.

15 Finding and Recommendation Though the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 ha been in force for nearly a year, it would be an undertatement to ay that the law i being effectively implemented. The Implementation Audit clearly highlight the following iue: Awarene and Reponivene There i a general lack of awarene on the law among the government official. Further, there i no clarity on how to go about implementing the law. When the Implementation Audit commenced in November 2002, mot of the public authoritie approached at that time had not appointed their Competent Authoritie, and hence refued to accept application for information. Thi ituation ha now coniderably improved epecially with important bodie like Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board more readily accepting application made under KRIA. Suo moto dicloure Except one public authority, the uo moto dicloure proviion under Section 3(b) of KRIA, which put an obligation on all public authoritie to diplay the following information on notice board, outide their office i not being fulfilled: - Particular of organiation, function and dutie - Power, and dutie of officer and employee and procedure followed in deciion making - Norm for dicharge of function - Detail of facilitie available to citizen for obtaining information. Delay Applicant were required to engage in coniderable follow -up in order to acce information. In ome cae a many a call have been made before information wa provided. With ome notable exception, in a majority of cae where information ha been provided there have been coniderable delay. In general, the time frame precribed by the law i not being adhered to. On an average it ha taken one month of regular follow up before information i provided. Lack of repone Out of 20 public authoritie that were approached in the coure of the Implementation Audit, 11 have not even reponded to application. Appeal Appeal again t delay have not received a repone. Approaching the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) ha been daunting for the few applicant that have tried to appeal to the econd appeal authority againt delay in official repone. The KAT ha aked for proper repreentation through legal counel and preentation of the cae in a highly legalitic format. Ordinary citizen find it difficult and expenive to engage in uch a complicated and lengthy proce.

16 Recommendation A the Implementation Audit ha hown, the ituation i not a happy one. Many tep need to be taken in order to enure effective implementation of Karnataka RTI legilation. The following are the recommendation baed on the finding of the implementation audit: Training and ytem building The nodal agency for implementation of KRIA, the Department of Peronnel and Adminitrative Reform (DPAR), mut conduct training eion on KRIA for all officer in general, and on-going training for Competent and Appellate Authoritie in particular. DPAR could prepare KRIA Implementation Guide to help government official undertand the law, in addition to providing them a tep-by-tep run-through on how to properly implement the law. All public authoritie mut appoint ufficient number of Competent and Appellate Authoritie. Identify information need To minimie duplication of application, public authoritie hould identify information that i commonly required by the citizen, and make thi available voluntarily on it webite or in any other form that i eaily acceible to citizen. Suo moto Dicloure Public authoritie mut diplay/publih the information mentioned in the uo moto dicloure claue Section 3(b) of KRIA - outide all their office. In order to enable the citizen to identify the document they are looking for, public authoritie hould make a lit of record maintained by them and diplay the ame on notice board and webite. Enforcing time limit - appeal and penaltie Time limit precribed under KRIA hould be trictly adhered to, and ytem need to be put in place to track the implementation of the time limit precribed under the law. Thi can effectively minimie conitent follow -up on the part of the applicant. Appellate Authoritie need to repond to appeal againt delay and refual to provide or providing incomplete information. The law provide for penaltie of up to R to be impoed in cae of delay - thee penaltie hould be trictly impoed. Monitoring implementation Public authoritie mut maintain a eparate regiter of the application received under KRIA 2 with detail of date of receipt of application, date of fee intimation and the date on which information ha been provided. In cae of refual, the date of letter of refual and reaon for refual mut be noted in the regiter. Thi will enable identification of problem area in implementing KRIA. The ytem could be made efficient by etting up and online monitoring ytem. A centralied monitoring body at the level of the DPAR to track the implementation of KRIA i eential to identify the problem area and deal with them effectively. In concluion, the tated objective of the law i to provide acce to information which would promote openne, tranparency and accountability in adminitration.., Thu, it i clear that the implementation of KRIA i a work in progre. Unle there i a clear and conitent effort to et in place ytem to effectively implement KRIA on the part of the government and it variou public authoritie, the law will remain a paper tiger. 2 Thi i required to be maintained under Rule 4 (2) of the KRIA rule.