Before I invite the speakers to speak on the Clause 3 & 4, let me speak a few words on the background of the topic of today's Consultation. As a matter of fact, we in the Department of Information & Public Relations, Orissa some time back started drafting a Working Paper on Right to Information in Orissa. Unfortunately some misgivings were created around it among the people. Some thought that this was the Bill that was going to be introduced in the Orissa Legislative Assembly in the present form. But it is not the fact. It is only a Working Paper on which we invited suggestions from different quarters. So far two other Consultations were held, one by CYSD and the other by CARE, Orissa. This is the third one.We have also invited suggestions from individuals too. In fact we have received many suggestions by way of e-mails, letters, drafts and proposals etc.. All these things are being considered. We hope the recommendations of this Consultation shall be duly forwarded to us by the organizers. All this shall be taken into account and the draft may accordingly be modified.

As regards the topic of the present Session, let me share a few words with you. In the Consultation hosted by CARE, it was recommended that the expression 'inspecting the records' as occurring in Clause 2 and 3 may be replaced by the expression 'perusal of records'.

So far as Clause 4 is concerned, there were a number of recommendations. The main recommendation was that the fee should not be too much for the common man. Let me tell you that on this point there was a misconception that every applicant for information was supposed to pay two types of fee, one being the access fee and the other being the charge for photocopying or reproduction of the document. But this is not the fact. Let me read the third para of Clause 4 (a) " that the access fee to be charged will be notified from time to time to cover the cost of photocopying of the requested information or the cost of the diskette or cassette, as the case may be". Thus the access fee is nothing but the cost of photocopying only. The phrase "to be notified from time to time" has been deliberately used, because the cost of photocopying might change. If for instance, the charge of photocopying per page Re.0.50 Paise today, it might increase to Rs.5/- per page after 5 years. That is why, notification of the fee from time to time shall be made. But in no case there would be two kinds of fee to be charged against an information seeker. One and the only one fee shall be charged, that is the charge for photocopying or reproduction. So in other words, the access fee as mentioned in the draft Bill is the fee charged to cover the cost of photocopying or reproduction, and nothing more.

In the Consultation hosted by CARE, there was another recommendation in respect of clause 4 (a) Para 4, which reads "..the fee will be fixed depending on the nature of use of the information i.e. commercial or personal use". In the Consultation hosted by CARE, the apprehension was felt that such a provision might be misused, i.e. somebody may apply for personal use, but would use it afterwards for commercial purposes. In view of such apprehension, the recommendation was made for charging of one, uniform category of fees for everybody, irrespective of the use personal or commercial, the information received would be put to.

Now I would request the speakers to give their specific suggestions on the Clause 3 and 4 of the Draft Bill.