DNA: Mumbai: Friday, March 20, 2015.
State
Information Commission (SIC) on Thursday ruled that Reliance Infrastructure
(RInfra) led Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd or MMOPL is "a public authority and
is amenable to RTI Act" – a stand that dna has been taking since May last
year and had even ran a campaign.
SIC took into
consideration various factors including funding by Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA), viability gap funding, contract termination,
cost of land being utilised for the project, shifting of underground and
overhead utilities, past judgements, etc before passing the order.
dna had filed
three RTI applications with the development authority which went unanswered,
despite repeated reminders, as MMOPL didn't share the information with its
consortium partner, MMRDA. Later the SIC disposed of the appeal on the grounds
that MMRDA is not responsible to furnish information if the same is unavailable
with the public authority.
Later,
ex-Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi filed an RTI application
for the same set of information with MMOPL, who directed him to approach MMRDA.
Shailesh then lodged a complaint with the SIC, who after hearing the arguments
passed the order.
MMOPL
spokesperson said, "We have not received any such order from the State
Information Commission."
Were
provisions of Concession Agreement considered?
Several
provisions were looked into, including onus being on MMRDA to provide necessary
space or land free from all encumbrances on a nominal lease of Re1 per sq.m per
annum as well as permission from various authorities. Three members on MMOPL
board of directors are government representatives to exercise control and
supervision.
How much
has MMRDA contributed to Mumbai Metro?
Stating that
MMRDA's financial stake is "substantial", the order reasoned that as
per the ready reckoner rate, the value of car depot land (9.53 hectares) at
today's rate is Rs65,800/- per sq.mtr, which comes to about Rs627.50 crore. If
Viability Gap Funding of Rs650 crore and 26% equity of Rs133 crore are
included, MMRDA's direct financial assistance is Rs1,410.50 crore, "besides
support in various other ways which also has huge financial implications such
as shifting of underground, surface and overhead utilities, etc".
What kind
of control does MMRDA has over MMOPL?
Concession
Agreement states that MMRDA can suspend the right of RInfra to operate the
Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar metro. It also has the right to utilise the proceeds
of fares and other revenues for meeting the costs incurred by MMRDA for
suspension. "MMOPL thus is clearly under obligation to fulfill various conditions
while operating Metro, failure of which would even enable MMRDA to suspend or
terminate the contract," reads the order.
Do
previous court judgments corroborate?
Four other
judgments substantiated on the implications of substantially financed as well
as control of a public authority over the activity of a private body. Another
judgment by High Court of Punjab and Haryana too was looked into, which states
that institutions performing public functions and receiving substantial
grant-in-aid cannot be argued of not being a public authority. In the case of
Mumbai Metro, the Viability Gap Funding is a grant to the project to make it
feasible.
Would the
project be possible without government support?
"The
very fact that without the financial support of the government, the metro
project was not viable at all, and has been designed on the basis of Viability
Gap Funding support of the government, clearly proves the above point. In
addition, the fare structure of metro is decided by a committee set up by the
government," reads the order.
Shailesh
Gandhi's comment on the order.
Citizens can
now get information about the costs of Mumbai Metro and the proposed fare
increases. This decision becomes very important since it effectively
establishes that most Public Private Partnerships are Public Authorities as
defined in the RTI Act and provide information held by them to Indians.
Corporates who have such substantial funding from the government should accept
their responsibility to citizens and accept that they are covered by RTI.
Merely because there is no penalty, they should not deny citizens their
fundamental right, when so much money is given by government on behalf of citizens.
.JPG)
.JPG)
