Wardha RTI applicant gets no reply from social forestry office, questions first appeal order

Information sought from the social forestry department in Wardha under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was not provided within the stipulated time. The applicant had to file a first appeal, and the case has raised questions about the effective implementation of the RTI law.

The applicant had submitted the application on September 1, 2026, to the department's Public Information Officer, Preeti Pusnake. It sought information on various government works from April 1, 2024, to September 1, 2026. The applicant asked for information and certified copies of documents on six points.

The first point was a list of all the ranges of the social forestry department in Wardha district and photocopies of their records. The second was details of expenditure on each sapling and certified copies of the related bills, vouchers and other expenditure documents. The third was entries on the sale, distribution and supply of saplings, and the list of beneficiaries.

The fourth point sought details of funds received by the department during the period, how they were used, and certified copies of documents on expenditure. The fifth was a list of works done by labourers, the amounts sanctioned and the actual expenditure. The sixth was certified copies of tenders, quotations, work orders, agreements, work completion certificates and, if available, validity certificates.

When the information was not received within the time limit, the applicant filed an appeal on October 5, 2026, before the first appellate authority, Assistant Conservator of Forests Ankita Naresh Telang. The appeal was heard at 3 pm on October 13, 2026.

At the hearing, the applicant gave a written statement saying the information had still not been received. The applicant also said that even if an application was transferred to another department under Section 6(3), that alone did not end the applicant's right to the information.

The applicant also cited Section 7(6), under which information must be provided free of charge if the period specified in Section 7(1) has not been followed. This too was submitted in writing at the hearing.

The applicant says the first appellate authority issued a written order directing the applicant to pay the required amount and collect the information. The order did not clearly state within how many days the information would be given. The applicant has expressed displeasure over this.

It is being demanded that whether the free-information provision applies be examined on the basis of the relevant records and timelines. There should also be clarity on the forwarding of the application, the demand for a fee and the period for providing the information.

Citizens' access to information on transparency, accountability and the use of public funds in government departments is an important part of democracy. Records of plantation, sapling distribution, use of funds and labourers' works are essential for accountability. If people have to make repeated applications, appeals and attend hearings to get information, ordinary citizens lose time and money.

The demand is for a senior-level inquiry into the functioning of the concerned Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority. It seeks a legal examination of the delay in providing information, the demand for a fee, consideration of the application of Section 7(6) and the absence of a time limit in the order. The applicant should be given the information sought as per the rules, and if a violation of the law is proved, the competent authority should take action as per the rules.

The demand has been made by RTI activist Ashish Sontakke, who is the district president of the Bhim Army Samvidhan Rakshak Dal, Wardha. He says information is a citizen's right in a democracy and transparent administration is the government's responsibility.