1. Pressing into service Right to Information Act, 2005

That life is not a bed of roses is being experienced by me for the last few months, on two fronts viz. (1) in respect of the Co-operative Housing Society where I reside and (2) in respect of my office premises of which the landlord is, LIC of India.

2. Both the above institutions are not running their affairs as per the appropriate law applicable to them. After a long persuasion, I noticed that my soft and reasonable approach towards the resolution of the grievances is going on deaf year. So I decided to take both of them head-on, with the help of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

1. Case of LIC

I had filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005, dated 8-8-2006, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in the Office of the Chairman, LIC of India, seeking certain information, since the authorities below as well as the Chairman, LIC of India, were not replying to my letters in normal course. So, the only option was to press into service the RTI Act. Here also, the LIC did not bother about my application. Hence, after the statutory period was over for receipt of the information, I filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act, against the CPIO, to the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi. The Central Information Commission took cognizance of my complaint and directed the CPIO vide letter dated 9-10-2006, to give the necessary information as sought by me, and send compliance report to the Commission, failing which penalty would be imposed as per the provision of section 20(1) of the Act. Simultaneously, by a copy of the above communication, I was advised to pursue the matter with LIC, CPIO. Accordingly, vide my letter dated November 4, 2006 addressed to the CPIO, I drew his attention to the above referred Commission’s letter. To my surprise, the CPIO refused to accept the said letter. I have now, therefore, once again taken up the matter with the Central Information Commission, vide letter dated 4-11-2006 informing them about the high-handed attitude of the LIC, in refusing the letter and requested the Commission to impose the penalty as per law. Readers would be kept informed about the order when passed by the Commission.

2. Case of my Housing Society

Our Society comprises of only 18 members. The present office bearers have formed a group and are running the Society as per their whims and fancies and other members have no interest at all in running of the Society. In this situation, I requested the office bearers - since as a group they have the majority - to run the Society as per the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. Since my suggestion was not acceptable to them, I wrote to the Dy. Registrar, K/E Ward, requesting him to conduct the inspection and enquiry about the working of the Society as back as 2004. As usual there was no reply. Hence, I wrote to the Commissioner of Co-Operation and Registrar of Societies, Pune, about the inefficient working of the Dy. Registrar and requested the Commissioner to direct the Dy. Registrar to appoint an Administrator for managing the affairs of the Society, so that the present group can be thrown out of the statutory power. As a result, it appears that on the advice of the Commissioner, the Dy. Registrar had issued show-cause notice to the office bearers indicating his intention to appoint an Administrator. In terms of the show-cause notice, the office bearers and the writer were heard in the month of August, 2006. The office bearers accepted before the Dy. Registrar that they were not replying to my letters at all and promised that they will reply to my letters hereafter. However, in spite of such assurance, there was no reply either from the office bearers or from the Dy. Registrar. The reasons were obvious. So to cut the ice, I filed an application before the Dy. Registrar under the RTI Act. This was replied to by giving a false and misleading reply. Thereupon, I filed an appeal which was accepted and the Dy. Registrar was directed to give requisite information immediately. This appeal order dated 7-10-2006 is being published for the general information of our readers as an extension of this column. In spite of this appeal order, the Dy. Registrar did not furnish the requisite information. Hence, I filed a second appeal on
15-11-2006, before the State Commission, requesting the commission to impose a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the aforesaid State PIO. On the State Commission hearing the Second Appeal, I shall keep you informed about the outcome.

2. In this connection, it will not be out of place to bring to the notice of our readers that the President, State Law Commission, Hon’ble Shri. D.N. Choudhari, in his 16th report presented to the Chief Minister recently, suggested, among others, that Co-Operative Housing Societies should also be brought within the scope and ambit of Prohibition of Corruption Act, 1988 to improve upon the working of various types of Co-Operative Societies, which are ridden with corrupt practices. The ‘Loksatta’ report dated 16-11-2006 in this behalf, is also published separately as an extension of this column.