This whistle-blower too feels the heat

This whistle-blower too feels the heat
Deccan Herald

The Right to Information Act continues to be a shot in the arm for citizens crusading against administrative apathy. However, in most cases, they do the whistle-blowing at their own peril.

The Right to Information Act continues to be a shot in the arm for citizens crusading against administrative apathy. However, in most cases, they do the whistle-blowing at their own peril.

Ask Ravindra Nath Guru. The retired scientist in the Department of Information Technology, Government of India, was recently “targeted” by vested interests, for asking unwelcome questions.

Mr Guru, in September, approached the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) after his complaints regarding BMP building by-law violations in his neighbourhood — BSK II Stage — had failed to get desired results.


At its third hearing, on November 27, the KIC directed Mr Guru to file an affidavit on his complaint against the BMP, represented by the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Padmanabhanagar Sub-Division.

On November 28, unidentified persons attacked Guru’s residence, breaking window panes on the ground and first floors.

“Vested interests upset by the KIC directive are involved in this. An ASI had initiated investigation immediately, but I’ve requested the Banashankari Police Inspector for protection,” Mr Guru told Deccan Herald.

Building plans

In December 2005 Mr Guru sought information on approved building plans in the locality, especially 24th Cross, BSK II Stage. Following this, 15 persons from the area sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner (South), BMP, alleging that Guru himself had violated by-laws while constructing his house.

The AEE inspected Mr Guru’s house and found no by-law violations. Guru, in turn, requested the AEE to check building rule violations by the complainants.

After an application under RTI, seeking details of action taken, yielded only “partial information”, he appealed to the KIC.

At the first hearing, the AEE said BMP could not serve notices on 13 of the 15 as they didn’t have “correct” addresses and that the other two who were “contacted” had said their buildings were too old to have sanctioned plans.

The KIC, at the third hearing, called that a “false statement” as the AEE had at the second hearing said they had already been issued “provisional notices” for violations.

“The KIC has directed me to examine what action could be taken against the 15 for making false allegations. I filed a PIL on their violations at the High Court in December 2005. The KIC directive will back the PIL,” said Mr Guru.

His appeal to the KIC has been adjourned to February 8, 2007.