Contempt

03.08.2006

The Registrar,

Central Information Commission

Sub:             CIC/WB/C/2006/00081 & RTI Application of IC re government accomodation

Dear Sir,

1. Four citizens had approached the Commission with the above Complaint against violation of section 4 of RTI Act by MOUD/ Dt of Estates (DOE) in failing to ensure RTI-compliant level of access to its computerized data on government accommodation. They had cited about a dozen examples of anomalies in data available over the internet for different accommodation Types and stated their grievance as that “Government employees entitled to accommodation – especially in lower Types – are being greatly disadvantaged by GAMS database information not being made meaningfully accessible. Public at large is also affected by the consequences of non-transparency in terms of both housing supply distortions and corrupt / corruption-prone practices”. The Commission disposed off the Complaint after hearing on 13.07.06 as under:
   

2. “The PIO Shri Chakrabarty committed before this Commission that the reconstructed website incorporating the points raised by the complainant would be on-line by the close of July. …Since the Directorate of Estates has admitted to the shortcomings, complained against and committed to completion of restructuring in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, this complaint is now disposed of with the stipulation that improvement of the website may be made a constant endeavour so as to keep the public authority in compliance to the Act.”
   
   On 17.07.06 I (Complainant 4) made an application for information of procedure to seek reconsideration and, meanwhile, review for correction of errors (15 nos) in the text of the Decision dt 13.07.06, copy of which is at encl.1 for ready reference. This is firstly to bring to the notice of the Commission / Registry that:
   
1. I have not received response to my application dt 17.07.06 as yet; and
2. MOUD-DOE has not honoured its commitment to the Commission – the website has not been reconstructed past the close of July.
3. It appears MOUD-DOE have also made similar commitments to Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Urban Development. In its Seventh Report (April 2005) the Committee – on being told by MOUD that DOE has a computerized system in Delhi “for ensuring transparent, hassle free and rule based allotment of residential accommodation” and “computerization of GPRA at regional stations has been assigned to NIC” and would be completed by 31.3.2006 – desired as follows:
   
   “4.36. The Committee hope that Ministry of Urban Development would take up the matter of computerization of regional offices of Directorate of Estates with National Informatic Centre (NIC) expeditiously and with adequate funds so as to bring transparency in their functioning. They hope that computerization would help in the quick delivery system and dispel any misgivings about the functioning of Directorate of Estates. They would, therefore, like to be informed in this regard further.”
   
   http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/urban/7rep.pdf
   
   In its Twelfth Report (November 2005) on Action Taken on Seventh Report, the Committee noted MOUD’s ‘reply’ – viz, “GAMS …has been developed in the Dte. Of Estates from May, 2003 for the entire housing stock available with the Directorate. It has been decided to computerize the allotment functions at eight regional stations, directly under the administrative control of the Dte. Of Estates. NIC has conducted the study of offices at these stations to work out the requirement of hardware and software” – and desired as follows:
   
   “49. The Committee desire that the computerization of all the eight regional offices of the Directorate of Estates be completed on top priority basis so as to ensure transparent, hassle free and rule based allotment of residential accommodation. Further, the eight regional offices of the Directorate of Estates be linked to the Headquarters through internet so as to ensure its close monitoring. The Committee should be kept informed about the steps taken in this direction.”
   
   http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/urban/12rep.pdf
   
4. It appears, therefore, that since enactment of RTI Act the admittedly (in the above complaint against) RTI non-compliant GAMS system for purportedly “transparent, hassle free and rule based allotment of residential accommodation” is being replicated countrywide at public cost. That the system is not what it is claimed to be has now also been demonstrated, in ambit of RTI Act, by an Application under s.6 in regard to his own entitlement to Type VII accommodation (anomalies in data about which are also illustrated in the above Complaint) by no less than an Information Commissioner, as reported in the press today (encl.2).
5. In view of the foregoing, I request:
1. Information of the status of my application dt 17.07.06 regarding review and reconsideration of the Decision dt 13.07.06 in the above Complaint.
2. view of the Commission on press reportage of an Information Commissioner’s personal Application under s.6 in pendency of the same issue before the Commission (in review application) in a Complaint against s.4 violation by MOUD-DOE.