More transparency and safeguards necessary for GDQs in govt land allocation, says activists
M T Saju, TNN, Dec 21, 2010, 02.02am IST
CHENNAI: AICC president Sonia Gandhi's exhortation to chief ministers at the Congress plenary session to abolish the government discretionary power to allocate land has triggered a debate and brought back under spotlight the recent allegations that the DMK government had misused the Government Discretionary Quota (GDQ) to favour politicians, bureaucrats and those close to chief minister M Karunanidhi while allocating housing plots. Although the order of allotment under the GDQ clearly mentions the eligibility of the person, the discretionary power of the chief minister prevails.
Says M G Devasahayam, retired IAS officer: "Discretion can't be arbitrary. The dates for application for the GDQ will always be a tricky affair. In many cases, people who are eligible for GDQ are not aware of the dates, which as per the rule should be published in a local newspaper. So there is strict violation of the rules and regulations. Since the discretionary power vests with the chief minister, the power of the officer appointed to monitor the functioning of the selection process will be overlooked."
Whether it is the DMK or the AIADMK, successive regimes have exercised their discretionary powers to favour those close to them. Activists point out that the GDQ could be misused using government orders, like the one passed in 2001, which lifted the restrictions on unsold plots in that period. "After the draw, if any plot or flat remained unsold, it can be allotted on a first-come first-served basis. With the misuse of 2001 order and the subsequent relaxation, the number of applications naturally increased. Citing increase in applications as a reason, the government increased GDQ from 10% to 15%. In most cases, the relevant documents are not submitted. There are cases in which even four people in a family got plots under the GDQ," points V Gopalakrishnan, of Fact, an NGO based in Chennai, whose RTI applications helped bring to light recently the alleged misuse of the discretionary quota.
Some of the eligible categories under the GDQ are single women, social workers, physically handicapped persons, defense personnel, senior citizens, state government servants and journalists. However, terms like social worker' are not defined properly, "A social worker must get a certificate from the NGO he/she is working with. But in many cases, plots have been issued to people close to politicians under this tag," says Gopalakrishnan.
Once the GDQ is issued, the divisional officer will send a provisional order to the person concerned, asking him to pay the initial amount within 21 days. Income and eligibility certificates should also be produced. "But unfortunately, this is not followed strictly in 90% of the cases," says Gopalakrishnan, adding that "Of late, the order prohibiting the beneficiary not to sell the property within three years of purchasing the land allotted to him or her, has also been removed from the sale deeds."
"If the discretion does not fit into the larger interest of the public then what is the use of the very concept?" asks retired DGP S P Mathur. "Land scams are the biggest in India. So it is high time we made all transactions transparent and online. If it is available online, then public can see this and will get a clear idea what's happening," he says.
Although people like Gopalakrishan demand abolition of GDQ', there are some who don't favour this. "The GDQ will be useful for many people provided it is used in the right way. There must be a screening committee to monitor the selection process," suggests Devasahayam.
Read more: More transparency and safeguards necessary for GDQs in govt land allocation, says activists - The Times of India
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
TN hsg quota abused to benefit judges,MLAs
TN hsg quota abused to benefit judges,MLAs
Jayaraj Sivan | TNN
Chennai: Close on the heels of the controversy surrounding land allotments to prominent politicians in Karnataka,a RTI activist in Chennai has blown the lid off similar largesse showered on judges,legislators and bureaucrats by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.According to housing board records acquired under RTI,many allotments have been made over the past decade through the state governments discretionary quota (GDQ),nearly 40% of them in 2008 alone.
The primary objective of the state-run TNHB,which manages a large land bank,is to create housing stock by granting plots or constructing flats at an affordable price for those who do not own one.The broad guidelines are intended to favour applicants who do not own a flat/house/plot within urban limits in any part of the state or in schemes promoted by TNHB anywhere in Tamil Nadu in ones name or in the name of spouses or minor children.The same conditions apply for the discretionary quota although the government is free to fast-track the application.According to RTI data,scores of allotments have been made in the last five years,in Mogappair and Thiruvanmiyur,violating norms.
The information was procured by V Gopalakrishnan,a RTI activist who filed applications seeking information from TNHB.According to the data provided to him,beneficiaries allotted land or flats at rates 40-60 % less than market value,include a sitting judge of the Madras HC,Congress and DMK legislators,senior police officials and bureaucrats such as a former regional passport officer.
Jayaraj Sivan | TNN
Chennai: Close on the heels of the controversy surrounding land allotments to prominent politicians in Karnataka,a RTI activist in Chennai has blown the lid off similar largesse showered on judges,legislators and bureaucrats by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.According to housing board records acquired under RTI,many allotments have been made over the past decade through the state governments discretionary quota (GDQ),nearly 40% of them in 2008 alone.
The primary objective of the state-run TNHB,which manages a large land bank,is to create housing stock by granting plots or constructing flats at an affordable price for those who do not own one.The broad guidelines are intended to favour applicants who do not own a flat/house/plot within urban limits in any part of the state or in schemes promoted by TNHB anywhere in Tamil Nadu in ones name or in the name of spouses or minor children.The same conditions apply for the discretionary quota although the government is free to fast-track the application.According to RTI data,scores of allotments have been made in the last five years,in Mogappair and Thiruvanmiyur,violating norms.
The information was procured by V Gopalakrishnan,a RTI activist who filed applications seeking information from TNHB.According to the data provided to him,beneficiaries allotted land or flats at rates 40-60 % less than market value,include a sitting judge of the Madras HC,Congress and DMK legislators,senior police officials and bureaucrats such as a former regional passport officer.
Right to [dis]informationDecember 7th, 2010
Right to [dis]informationDecember 7th, 2010
DC Correspondent
Chennai, Dec. 6: Right to Information (RTI) activists in Tamil Nadu face several hurdles in getting information from public information officers in government offices and what is worse is that three information commissioner posts are lying vacant despite the large backlog of RTI applications.
With the death of commissioner T.R. Ramasamy, the commission now has only three commissioners, Mr R. Perumalsamy, Mr T. Srinivasan and Ms Sarada Nambi Arooran led by state chief information commissioner K. S. Sripathy.
Of the sanctioned 10 posts of information commissioners, only five have been filled since the creation of the commission.
Mr N.R. Mohanram, a Salem-based RTI activist, said the Tamil Nadu state information commission was one of the badly run information commissions in the country. The TN commission does not implement several orders issued by the Union government and Central information commission.
“The TN information commission takes six to nine months to take up a petition for hearing. Such is the way of the commission. With the increasing pendency of cases, the work burden of the commissioners goes up and it would affect their performance,” he said.
The RTI commission functions on the first floor of Kamadhenu supermarket in Teynampet with very little space for officers and petitioners, besides minimum storage space for preserving records.
Mr A. Devaneyan, another RTI activist, said the commission lacks basic infrastructure including adequate space for petitioners to be seated. “There is no proper space for petitioners and public information officers to wait to attend the hearing. We have to stand inside the office, which makes it difficult for the commission staff to move inside the office. Petitioners have to wait outside or move around the office till their appeal is heard,” he said.
***
More disorder than order
Chennai, Dec. 6: RTI activists in the state complain that most of the state information commissioners violate the Right to Information Act by pronouncing misleading orders.
Mr B. Ramesh, an advocate who has been filing RTIs for a long time, said most of the orders delivered by state information commissioners violate the RTI Act.
There is no provision in the RTI Act for limiting the number of questions but the commissioners, without reading the Act, direct petitioners to restrict the number of questions.
“In most cases, commissioners do not summon the petitioner and the public information officer but direct the petitioner not to ask more questions, which violates the Act. Nobody knows how the commissioners take up cases for hearing. Some cases are heard six months to one year later but some other cases are taken up for hearing within a month,” he said.
RTI activist Arul Doss said, “I received eight letters from the commission describing my questions as ones which hamper the functioning of the public authority. I wanted to know how much the state government has allotted for the urban housing department and how much has been spent for development of the poor in the state. I don’t know how these questions will hinder the functioning of the PIO and the commissioners support PIOs by not providing the details,” he said.
with inputs from PRAMILA KRISHNAN
***
Distance keeps info out of reach
Chennai, Dec. 6: Even a year after the installation of video-conferencing facility at the Tamil Nadu state information commission (TNSIC), the facility was not put to use causing severe hardship to applicants from the southern districts.
The facility was installed by the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) at a cost of `15 lakh at the commission’s head office. The facility will be interlinked with the existing video-conferencing facility in other district headquarters.
Video-conferencing would come in handy for applicants from Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Ooty and other distant places. Not only the applicants, even the information commissioners need not travel to the districts to hear the petitions.
The Central information commission in New Delhi has for more than three years been hearing cases from across India with the help of video-conferencing.
Vellore RTI activist M. Sivaraj said the proposal to instal video-conferencing facility was a very good one.
Unfortunately, the state government was not cooperating. When Mr S. Ramakrishnan was chief information commissioner, he prepared the proposal. But it now remains only on paper, he said.
He alleged that the state government did not want to implement these progressive projects because they do not want to implement the RTI Act in letter and spirit.
City-based RTI activist V. Madhav said, “The video-conferencing system was placed with much fanfare but it is not utilised. Petitioners from distant places are forced to come to Chennai to appear for the hearing. The video-conferencing system should be put to use as soon as possible in order to help the petitioners.”
Information commissioners who travel to various districts to hear petitions claim travel expenses, Mr V. Gopalakrishnan, an RTI activist explained, adding that the TNSIC should make use of the facility to speed up disposal of petitions.
Attempts to contact state chief information commissioner K. Sripathi proved futile
DC Correspondent
Chennai, Dec. 6: Right to Information (RTI) activists in Tamil Nadu face several hurdles in getting information from public information officers in government offices and what is worse is that three information commissioner posts are lying vacant despite the large backlog of RTI applications.
With the death of commissioner T.R. Ramasamy, the commission now has only three commissioners, Mr R. Perumalsamy, Mr T. Srinivasan and Ms Sarada Nambi Arooran led by state chief information commissioner K. S. Sripathy.
Of the sanctioned 10 posts of information commissioners, only five have been filled since the creation of the commission.
Mr N.R. Mohanram, a Salem-based RTI activist, said the Tamil Nadu state information commission was one of the badly run information commissions in the country. The TN commission does not implement several orders issued by the Union government and Central information commission.
“The TN information commission takes six to nine months to take up a petition for hearing. Such is the way of the commission. With the increasing pendency of cases, the work burden of the commissioners goes up and it would affect their performance,” he said.
The RTI commission functions on the first floor of Kamadhenu supermarket in Teynampet with very little space for officers and petitioners, besides minimum storage space for preserving records.
Mr A. Devaneyan, another RTI activist, said the commission lacks basic infrastructure including adequate space for petitioners to be seated. “There is no proper space for petitioners and public information officers to wait to attend the hearing. We have to stand inside the office, which makes it difficult for the commission staff to move inside the office. Petitioners have to wait outside or move around the office till their appeal is heard,” he said.
***
More disorder than order
Chennai, Dec. 6: RTI activists in the state complain that most of the state information commissioners violate the Right to Information Act by pronouncing misleading orders.
Mr B. Ramesh, an advocate who has been filing RTIs for a long time, said most of the orders delivered by state information commissioners violate the RTI Act.
There is no provision in the RTI Act for limiting the number of questions but the commissioners, without reading the Act, direct petitioners to restrict the number of questions.
“In most cases, commissioners do not summon the petitioner and the public information officer but direct the petitioner not to ask more questions, which violates the Act. Nobody knows how the commissioners take up cases for hearing. Some cases are heard six months to one year later but some other cases are taken up for hearing within a month,” he said.
RTI activist Arul Doss said, “I received eight letters from the commission describing my questions as ones which hamper the functioning of the public authority. I wanted to know how much the state government has allotted for the urban housing department and how much has been spent for development of the poor in the state. I don’t know how these questions will hinder the functioning of the PIO and the commissioners support PIOs by not providing the details,” he said.
with inputs from PRAMILA KRISHNAN
***
Distance keeps info out of reach
Chennai, Dec. 6: Even a year after the installation of video-conferencing facility at the Tamil Nadu state information commission (TNSIC), the facility was not put to use causing severe hardship to applicants from the southern districts.
The facility was installed by the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) at a cost of `15 lakh at the commission’s head office. The facility will be interlinked with the existing video-conferencing facility in other district headquarters.
Video-conferencing would come in handy for applicants from Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Ooty and other distant places. Not only the applicants, even the information commissioners need not travel to the districts to hear the petitions.
The Central information commission in New Delhi has for more than three years been hearing cases from across India with the help of video-conferencing.
Vellore RTI activist M. Sivaraj said the proposal to instal video-conferencing facility was a very good one.
Unfortunately, the state government was not cooperating. When Mr S. Ramakrishnan was chief information commissioner, he prepared the proposal. But it now remains only on paper, he said.
He alleged that the state government did not want to implement these progressive projects because they do not want to implement the RTI Act in letter and spirit.
City-based RTI activist V. Madhav said, “The video-conferencing system was placed with much fanfare but it is not utilised. Petitioners from distant places are forced to come to Chennai to appear for the hearing. The video-conferencing system should be put to use as soon as possible in order to help the petitioners.”
Information commissioners who travel to various districts to hear petitions claim travel expenses, Mr V. Gopalakrishnan, an RTI activist explained, adding that the TNSIC should make use of the facility to speed up disposal of petitions.
Attempts to contact state chief information commissioner K. Sripathi proved futile
Now land scam surfaces in Tamil Nadu
Now land scam surfaces in Tamil Nadu
Updated on Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 18:17
Chennai: After land scams rocking the BJP government in Karnataka, the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu is now facing charges of misuse of discretionary powers in allotting prime land to scores of people, including MLAs, politicians and top bureaucrats.
Information obtained through an RTI query has revealed prime land was allotted to a judge of the Madras High Court, a retired judge, kin of a state minister, DMK and Congress MLAs, and ruling party functionaries and a top Intelligence official among others allegedly in violation of norms.
According to city-based RTI activist V Gopalakrishnan, who has obtained the information, the allotments were made in the last few years by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), whose purpose is to create housing stock to applicants who do not own a flat, house or plot.
Several allottees were connected to those in power and included DMK functionaries' kin.
The beneficiaries were allegedly allotted houses in violation of TNHB rules, as most of them already reportedly owned residential property and at far less price than the market rates.
PTI
Updated on Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 18:17
Chennai: After land scams rocking the BJP government in Karnataka, the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu is now facing charges of misuse of discretionary powers in allotting prime land to scores of people, including MLAs, politicians and top bureaucrats.
Information obtained through an RTI query has revealed prime land was allotted to a judge of the Madras High Court, a retired judge, kin of a state minister, DMK and Congress MLAs, and ruling party functionaries and a top Intelligence official among others allegedly in violation of norms.
According to city-based RTI activist V Gopalakrishnan, who has obtained the information, the allotments were made in the last few years by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB), whose purpose is to create housing stock to applicants who do not own a flat, house or plot.
Several allottees were connected to those in power and included DMK functionaries' kin.
The beneficiaries were allegedly allotted houses in violation of TNHB rules, as most of them already reportedly owned residential property and at far less price than the market rates.
PTI
New land, old plot: RTI reveals a TN ‘scam’
Expressindia » Story
New land, old plot: RTI reveals a TN ‘scam’
Gopu Mohan
Posted: Dec 08, 2010 at 0259 hrs IST
Chennai It took a while, but the lid seems to be finally off an alleged land scam in Tamil Nadu that is potentially as damaging for the state government as similar cases recently surfacing elsewhere in the country.
It has emerged from documents obtained by an RTI activist, V Gopalakrishnan, that the DMK government allotted land worth crores to a long list of people — politicians, their family members, senior officials and even senior judicial staff — by allegedly misusing its discretionary powers.
At the heart of the alleged scam is a special power given to the authorities to award 15 per cent of the properties developed by the state agency, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, under what is called the Government’s Discretionary Quota (GDQ). This is done based on the recommendations by the Chief Minister.
Though such powers could be justified on the face of it, the list of beneficiaries, with the names of influential persons, proves otherwise.
The norms on eligibility of applicants clearly states the categories of person who could be accommodated in the GDQ list. They include widows, deserted or single women, social workers, disabled persons, former armed forces personnels, eminent personalities, freedom fighters, government servants having ‘unblemished’ service records, journalists, among others.
But the list of beneficiaries reveals that several of those who got land were influential DMK politicians, officials who have faced corruption charges and former and serving judges of the Madras High Court. Two personal security officers of Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and two children of the CM’s secretaries are also among the beneficiaries.
In the case of politicians and the relatives of influential persons in the list, it is the ‘social worker’ category that has allegedly been twisted to suit the need. Many received ‘certificates’ from local government officials, some even presented citations from largely social groups like Lions Club and Rotary Club to meet the eligibility.
More ridiculous is perhaps the self-attestations given by some of the officials certifying that their career was “unblemished”, like in the case of G Prakash, an IAS official who was the collector of Tirunelveli district at the time of allotment.
Most officials including Sumathi Ravichandran, a relative of senior DMK leader and Finance Minister K Anbazhagan and a former Regional Passport Officer who was arrested on bribe charges, did not present the ‘Unblemished Government Servant’ certificate from their parent department as is mandatory. Only those with 25 years service without any punishment or adverse remark is eligible for a certificate. In Sumathi’s defence, the case did not even reach the chargesheet stage and she rejoined service though not as the RPO.
When asked about the impropriety and abuse of power in the allotment of housing board plots, State Revenue Minister I Periyasamy told reporters on Tuesday that the land was allotted as per the norms of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Agriculture Minister S Arumugam, whose kin were among the beneficiaries, stated ignorance as to how exactly his family members got the properties, but maintained that there were no violations committed. The board gave allotment from among the eligible applicants, the senior DMK leader said.
New land, old plot: RTI reveals a TN ‘scam’
Gopu Mohan
Posted: Dec 08, 2010 at 0259 hrs IST
Chennai It took a while, but the lid seems to be finally off an alleged land scam in Tamil Nadu that is potentially as damaging for the state government as similar cases recently surfacing elsewhere in the country.
It has emerged from documents obtained by an RTI activist, V Gopalakrishnan, that the DMK government allotted land worth crores to a long list of people — politicians, their family members, senior officials and even senior judicial staff — by allegedly misusing its discretionary powers.
At the heart of the alleged scam is a special power given to the authorities to award 15 per cent of the properties developed by the state agency, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, under what is called the Government’s Discretionary Quota (GDQ). This is done based on the recommendations by the Chief Minister.
Though such powers could be justified on the face of it, the list of beneficiaries, with the names of influential persons, proves otherwise.
The norms on eligibility of applicants clearly states the categories of person who could be accommodated in the GDQ list. They include widows, deserted or single women, social workers, disabled persons, former armed forces personnels, eminent personalities, freedom fighters, government servants having ‘unblemished’ service records, journalists, among others.
But the list of beneficiaries reveals that several of those who got land were influential DMK politicians, officials who have faced corruption charges and former and serving judges of the Madras High Court. Two personal security officers of Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and two children of the CM’s secretaries are also among the beneficiaries.
In the case of politicians and the relatives of influential persons in the list, it is the ‘social worker’ category that has allegedly been twisted to suit the need. Many received ‘certificates’ from local government officials, some even presented citations from largely social groups like Lions Club and Rotary Club to meet the eligibility.
More ridiculous is perhaps the self-attestations given by some of the officials certifying that their career was “unblemished”, like in the case of G Prakash, an IAS official who was the collector of Tirunelveli district at the time of allotment.
Most officials including Sumathi Ravichandran, a relative of senior DMK leader and Finance Minister K Anbazhagan and a former Regional Passport Officer who was arrested on bribe charges, did not present the ‘Unblemished Government Servant’ certificate from their parent department as is mandatory. Only those with 25 years service without any punishment or adverse remark is eligible for a certificate. In Sumathi’s defence, the case did not even reach the chargesheet stage and she rejoined service though not as the RPO.
When asked about the impropriety and abuse of power in the allotment of housing board plots, State Revenue Minister I Periyasamy told reporters on Tuesday that the land was allotted as per the norms of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Agriculture Minister S Arumugam, whose kin were among the beneficiaries, stated ignorance as to how exactly his family members got the properties, but maintained that there were no violations committed. The board gave allotment from among the eligible applicants, the senior DMK leader said.
Dec. 13: City-based RTI activists oppose the government’s proposal to amend the RTI rules to restrict the application seeking information to 250 words and only one subject. At present, there’s no word cap and applicants can seek information on any number of subjects in a single application.
According to the proposed amendments, the DOPT, the nodal body for implementing the Act in the country, has said RTI applicants will have to pay the “actual amount” spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information.
The rules will be a modification of the present RTI (regulation of fee and cost) rules, 2005 and the Central information commission (appeal procedure) rules, 2005.
Activists not for changes in RTI rulesDecember 14th, 2010
DC
RTI activist V. Gopalakrishnan, who exposed the irregularities in TNHB allotments, said, “By restricting the application to 250 words, the government will make it difficult for the common man to seek information.”
He said the proposal was a clear attempt to create grey areas in a transparent law and allow scope for harassment of applicants.
Citing his own experience, Mr Gopalakrishnan said in one of his petitions seeking information on IPS officers who sought permission to purchase movable and immovable property, state information commissioner R. Perumalsamy dismissed the petition saying that the appellant should be considerate and reasonable in making request from any public authority, as the authority has to attend to their routine work besides the work under the RTI Act. “Now the new amendment would only help the PIOs to deny information to the applicant,” he said.
According to the proposed amendments, the DOPT, the nodal body for implementing the Act in the country, has said RTI applicants will have to pay the “actual amount” spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information.
The rules will be a modification of the present RTI (regulation of fee and cost) rules, 2005 and the Central information commission (appeal procedure) rules, 2005.
Activists not for changes in RTI rulesDecember 14th, 2010
DC
RTI activist V. Gopalakrishnan, who exposed the irregularities in TNHB allotments, said, “By restricting the application to 250 words, the government will make it difficult for the common man to seek information.”
He said the proposal was a clear attempt to create grey areas in a transparent law and allow scope for harassment of applicants.
Citing his own experience, Mr Gopalakrishnan said in one of his petitions seeking information on IPS officers who sought permission to purchase movable and immovable property, state information commissioner R. Perumalsamy dismissed the petition saying that the appellant should be considerate and reasonable in making request from any public authority, as the authority has to attend to their routine work besides the work under the RTI Act. “Now the new amendment would only help the PIOs to deny information to the applicant,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)