Pareswar Khandayat Ray

Bhubaneswar, May 19: A businessman of Shahid Nagar area has sought to know from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials about two neon signboards that they had removed from his premises on January 18.

“Earlier, I applied to the BMC through the RTI on February 4. Given no reply, I again applied on March 10 to the first appellate authority and finally the reply came on March 26. It said that there was no record with the civic authorities and the materials were also not found. Therefore, I made a fresh application on additional grounds with 10 points to know details about the loss of my property during the BMC drive,” said septuagenarian businessman Pareswar Khandayat Ray.

When Ray raised questions under the additional grounds for reply as per the RTI Act, the BMC authorities asked him to come for the first hearing on March 31. But, an official carrying out the hearing on behalf of the first appellate authority told Ray that “the questions raised in the re-application are like quizzing the authority of the corporation and for that reason you might not get a reply in future and the RTI application will have no standing”.

“On hearing this, I met the first appellate authority regarding the application on May 12 and the hearing was fixed on the next day. However, during the hearing, the deputy commissioner realised the lacunae of the official proceedings while executing the authority and ordered that the BMC officials should give me all the replies point-by-point. Now, I am waiting for the reply to arrive. After getting the same, I will move court,” he said. “As a senior citizen I have seen the city growing from a notified area council (NAC). With its growth from a small NAC town to today’s corporation, there should be a visible change in the attitude and dealings of the officials concerned. The citizens are always there to cooperate, but the officials have to follow the rules as per the Orissa Municipal Corporation (OMC) Act, 2003.” According to the OMC Act, a BMC notice has to be served as per Act 554 of the OMC and action is to be taken as per Act 654, but the officials perhaps failed to realise the other rules that tell them regarding keeping an inventory while dismantling a structure as the owner has to take the things back after paying a charge and fine. “However, in my case, there was no inventory and two neon signboards of worth Rs 80,000 were nowhere to be seen in the BMC stores. I want the details regarding my property and if the authorities feel that I am quizzing them, I cannot help. If they can demolish the structures as per the OMC Act, they have to comply other rules framed under the same Act.” “Above all, the conduct of the officer concerned in ruining the personal image of a senior citizen is also to be considered with an open mind. I was never hurt in my life in the city, the way I was treated by the official carrying out the BMC drive on January 18. While targeting my structures, the enforcing team spared other structures nearby. To run a successful corporation, the administrators should work hand-in-hand with the citizens, but not in isolation and also not by taking a warring attitude,” he said.

A senior BMC officer, however, admitted that indeed there were complaints against officials for adopting ‘selective’ and ‘personal approach’ in demolishing structures across the city or while implementing the OMC Act.