While chances of the RInfra-led Mumbai Metro One Private Limited (MMOPL), the Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar Metro operator, being included in the purview of the RTI Act look slim as of now, activists and commuters believe it is the only way forward.
The reason? The sweeping powers vested in the MMOPL, which is the country's first and biggest private metro railway administrator, due to which activists feel it should be open to inquiries from time to time. Here are a few examples: MMOPL has the power to control its assets, including selling or any commercial exploitation. In pursuit of safety, it can enter adjacent lands to take correctional measures. It also has the power to remove people from its premises, or disallow people on its trains. (see box for more powers).
A frequent commuter, Bhandup resident Manish Chaturvedi, asked why the MMOPL was treated differently. "Look at the kind of powers it has been given. They are equivalent to the railway zones. So if the railway zones are under RTI, why not MMOPL?" he asked.
The other reason, government officials point out, is the bad blood between MMOPL and MMRDA.
"It started during the construction phase and came to a head during fare fixation. Not surprisingly, the issue landed in court," said a government official. Privately, MMOPL officials agree that the relationship is severely strained. For a commuter, the cold war between MMOPL and MMRDA will mean that the former could withhold data from the latter, and as a result, the MMRDA could plead helplessness in the face of RTI applications.
Officials also said that for those who want a true picture of how the metro is doing in terms of ridership, punctuality, profits, expenditure, commercial development etc., the lack of RTI powers would mean a long haul to know the truth.
What the MMOPL can do:
1) Acquire, hold and dispose of properties owned by it, both movable and immovable
2) Improve, develop or alter any property or asset held by it
3) Develop any metro railway land for commercial use
4) Execute any lease or grant any licence in respect of the property held by it
5) Enter temporarily lands adjoining the metro railway alignment in order to remove obstructions
Sweeping powers under the Metro Railway (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2002
Section 6: To ensure safety, MMOPL has the right to enter any land adjoining the metro alignment to remove obstructions which may affect the movement of trains or obstruct signals.
Section ?: The government-appointed Commissioner of Railway Safety will be designated as the Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety when investigating Metro railway accidents. It will be the most powerful authority when it comes to accidents. Claims and compensation would be adjudicated by the claims commissioner. Both commissioners will have the authority of a civil court.
Section 27 — Prohibits any person with a contagious disease or infection from traveling on the Metro. The Metro administration will have the right to remove such a person from its premises.
Section 62 — The MRA can, if it chooses, remove any person from the Metro if caught demonstrating against the Metro within the Metro premises.
Section 68 — A passenger obstructing Metro railway staff from discharging their duties can get one year in jail and/or Rs1,000 fine.
Section 74 — Pertaining to sabotage: It could see a person being imprisoned for anything between 3 years and life. In case sabotage results in death and severe destruction, death penalty could be invoked.
Section 82 — The power to arrest, even without warrant, would be with the MRA official or a policeman of head constable's rank or any other person authorised by the MRA.
Past examples where SIC ruled against private companies in the public service sector:
Case study 1:
Anil Galgali vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. & others (decided on 19/07/2011 under No. M.M.R.2011/complaint No. 1578/01)
Reliance Infrastructure, an electricity distribution private company, was out of RTI's purview. The State Information Commission (SIC), considering the arguments in the case, had concluded that electric distribution comes within the field of public service and power consumers within Mumbai's civic limits as well as in Maharashtra can use the RTI with respect to power supply. The commission had even observed that depriving these consumers of the power to use RTI will be an injustice and contrary to the objectives given under the preface of RTI Act, 2005.
STATUS: Stay order from the Bombay high court on the division bench judgment of SIC
Case study 2:
Sanjay Ramesh Shirodkar vs. Mumbai International Airport Limited & Ministry of Civil Aviation & Airport Authority of India (decided on 30/05/2011 under Complaint No. CIC/MA/C/2008/000195/SS)
Similar to MMOPL, the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) is a joint venture between the GVK-led consortium (74%) and the Airports Authority of India (26%). The modernising of Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport is being done on a Public Private Partnership basis. The Chief Information Commission, New Delhi, after hearing the case, had observed that the MIAL is a 'public authority' and that it should appoint a public information officer and First Appellate Authority as mandated under the RTI Act.
STATUS: Stay order from Delhi high court on the CIC judgment
Expertspeak
This correspondent spoke to Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner, who reasoned why the MMOPL should come within the ambit of RTI.
The RTI Act can be used by any citizen to access information from public authorities as defined in the Act. Section 2 (h) states that 'public authority' means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:
(a) by or under the Constitution
(b) by any other law made by Parliament
(c) by any other law made by state legislature
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed
(ii) non-government organisation substantially financed
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government
"As per section 2 (d) (I) of the Act, 'a body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government is a 'public authority''. Owned generally is taken as holding over 50% of the equity. In this case, the government does not have over 50% shares and hence cannot be said to own the company. However, by owning 26% shares, it certainly has a certain level of control over the company," he said.
"It also has directors on the board who are presumed to be there to exercise control. Besides, the government has contributed Rs 650 crore to the equity, which is substantial funding. Thus, the government has 26% shareholding and has financed the venture with Rs 650 crore. By virtue of this, it is evident that the government has control over it and has also substantially funded it. Even an NGO which gets substantial funding is covered by the law as per Section 2 (h) (d) (ii)," added Gandhi.
Hence, Gandhi concluded that MMOPL accurately fits into the 'definition of a public authority'. "It must appoint a Public Information Officer and accept its responsibility to supply information as per the RTI Act. As a socially responsible corporate, it must follow the law accept transparency and accountability to citizens," he said.
Dna's coverage of problems plaguing the Metro
May 2 – Reliance Infra inches closer to full control over Mumbai Metro
May 5 – Metro & it's nuts and bolts
May 26 – Versova-Andheri Metro out of RTI purview?
August 22 – Is RInfra's city metro a top secret project?
August 25 – Govt-led MMOPL should be under RTI
Opinion Poll
Should RInfra led MMOPL, that operates Mumbai Metro come under RTI Act?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Can't Say
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}