Mid-Day:Mumbai:Saturday, March 03, 2012.
RTI activist says Railway officials stonewalling attempts to gain info on status of work taken up by contractor at CST and payments made.
A Right to Information (RTI) activist was in for a rude shock when, in response to an RTI query about an ongoing construction work at CST, the Central Railway (CR) responded by saying the party concerned the contractor, according to the CR had declined to disclose the information.
 |
RTI activist Irfan Hakam sought details about the ongoing construction work on theentrance to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus from the P D'Mello Road side as he feared the contractor had been paid without having completed the job |
Irfan Hakam (33), a resident of Mohammed Ali Road in south Mumbai, had sought details about the ongoing work on the entrance to Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) from the P D'Mello Road side.
According to Hakam, the work was being carried out by M/s M S Mistry and Co and was worth Rs 1.9 crore. He said he had sought information in September on the completion status of the work and payments made to the contractor, but getting a timely reply was proving difficult.
Third party clause;
Hakam pursued the matter through correspondence and personal meetings, and finally on January 18 the department replied (copy with MiD DAY) that the information sought by him "pertains to third party personal information" and so, as per the relevant clause, could not be provided without the consent of the party concerned. The reply added that the third party "has denied to disclose the information".
"I am shocked to read the reply. I clearly can say the railway officers have personal interest in hiding the truth. I have complained to the vigilance department against the RTI and other officers concerned," said Hakam.
Hakam's complaint (copy with MiD DAY) to the vigilance department demands a detailed inquiry into the matter. "I have reliable information that Mistry has done only 40 per cent of the work but taken 100 per cent payment for it," said Hakam.
According to Hakam, the owner of M/s M S Mistry was earlier attached as a contractor with the BMC and also used to take up work for MHADA.
Hakam said some years ago in south Mumbai there was a fire during welding work carried out by the contractor in a building, following which the contractor decided to lie low. After the fire incident, M/s MS Mistry did not go for any MHADA contracts and instead took up railway works.
RTI, babus, Third PARTY and I;
Despite clear guidelines on dealing with applications filed under the RTI Act, the administrative class uses its own wisdom.
Some time ago I learnt the state was doling out over Rs 100 crore as a special incentive just to persuade a reputable industrial house to establish its automobile project near Pune, and I decided to file an RTI application to know what had led to the decision.
The information officer rejected the application , saying the information sought was related to a third party. My appeal met the same fate despite submitting a document tabled in the state legislature and arguing that any document made available to the legislature can be also be made available under RTI.
The appellate authority decision said the third party the industrial house objected to parting with the information.
I went in appeal before the State Information Commissioner. The government argued the industrial house's side should also be heard. A senior vice-president of the firm attended a hearing and opposed my application. My stand was clear: the information pertained to the government and not any industrial house.
The Rs 100 crore was part of the state treasury and taxpayer money. Also, the automobile unit was set up in a highly developed industrial zone and should not have attracted any sop. Finally, my appeal was upheld and I got copies of the file I wanted.
Experts say third party clause misused;
Ranjit Mahanti, an authority on RTI, said: "The 'third party' clause is meant to protect the legitimate interests of private companies. But it is used as a ploy to reject RTI applications and deliberately conceal information. Only when the applicant goes in appeal do the agencies surrender the information."
RTI expert Sameer Zaveri said: "There is a Supreme Court decision which has held that whenever public money is involved, no government agency can withhold any information from an RTI applicant."
The other side;
A K Singh, Public Relations Officer (PRO), Central Railway, said: "I am not aware about all this. I will look into it when the matter comes to me."
According to Hakam, the work was being carried out by M/s M S Mistry and Co and was worth Rs 1.9 crore. He said he had sought information in September on the completion status of the work and payments made to the contractor, but getting a timely reply was proving difficult.
Third party clause;
Hakam pursued the matter through correspondence and personal meetings, and finally on January 18 the department replied (copy with MiD DAY) that the information sought by him "pertains to third party personal information" and so, as per the relevant clause, could not be provided without the consent of the party concerned. The reply added that the third party "has denied to disclose the information".
"I am shocked to read the reply. I clearly can say the railway officers have personal interest in hiding the truth. I have complained to the vigilance department against the RTI and other officers concerned," said Hakam.
Hakam's complaint (copy with MiD DAY) to the vigilance department demands a detailed inquiry into the matter. "I have reliable information that Mistry has done only 40 per cent of the work but taken 100 per cent payment for it," said Hakam.
According to Hakam, the owner of M/s M S Mistry was earlier attached as a contractor with the BMC and also used to take up work for MHADA.
Hakam said some years ago in south Mumbai there was a fire during welding work carried out by the contractor in a building, following which the contractor decided to lie low. After the fire incident, M/s MS Mistry did not go for any MHADA contracts and instead took up railway works.
RTI, babus, Third PARTY and I;
Despite clear guidelines on dealing with applications filed under the RTI Act, the administrative class uses its own wisdom.
Some time ago I learnt the state was doling out over Rs 100 crore as a special incentive just to persuade a reputable industrial house to establish its automobile project near Pune, and I decided to file an RTI application to know what had led to the decision.
The information officer rejected the application , saying the information sought was related to a third party. My appeal met the same fate despite submitting a document tabled in the state legislature and arguing that any document made available to the legislature can be also be made available under RTI.
The appellate authority decision said the third party the industrial house objected to parting with the information.
I went in appeal before the State Information Commissioner. The government argued the industrial house's side should also be heard. A senior vice-president of the firm attended a hearing and opposed my application. My stand was clear: the information pertained to the government and not any industrial house.
The Rs 100 crore was part of the state treasury and taxpayer money. Also, the automobile unit was set up in a highly developed industrial zone and should not have attracted any sop. Finally, my appeal was upheld and I got copies of the file I wanted.
Experts say third party clause misused;
Ranjit Mahanti, an authority on RTI, said: "The 'third party' clause is meant to protect the legitimate interests of private companies. But it is used as a ploy to reject RTI applications and deliberately conceal information. Only when the applicant goes in appeal do the agencies surrender the information."
RTI expert Sameer Zaveri said: "There is a Supreme Court decision which has held that whenever public money is involved, no government agency can withhold any information from an RTI applicant."
The other side;
A K Singh, Public Relations Officer (PRO), Central Railway, said: "I am not aware about all this. I will look into it when the matter comes to me."
.JPG)
.JPG)
