Supplementary Affidavit with Prayers

IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

In re:

Complaint dated 20 January 2005

Re: Non-implementation of RTI Act in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

By: Gita Dewan Verma ...

Against: Managing Director, DMRC Ltd ...

SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMPLAINANT (WITH PRAYER)

1. The Complainant had filed the above Complaint with reference, inter alia, to gaps in DMRC website in terms of section 4 of the ACT (para-2) and to seven requests for information under section 4 made during 18.10.05 and 17.01.06 (para-3, Annexure-6). In these requests the Complainant had pointed out non-compliance of section 4(1)(b), sought publication under sections 4(1)(b) or 4(1)(c) of 4(2) and/or information under section 4(1)(d) or 4(4), and said that continuing ad-hoc PR by DMRC amounted to "mis-information / misleading public, professionals, investors, authorities and institutions to participate in / endorse / replicate DMRC activities inclusive of violations attracting severe penalties" (para-4). Contending that "DMRC is spending huge amount of public money, but even basic facts of its functioning, accounts, etc, are not known to public" and it is exemplifying "a culture of dis-information and mis-information" by displaying "alongside propensity to personalise the organisation with a combination of corporate opacity and self-promotional PR, utter indifference to transparency and accountability guarantees of RTI Act" (para-5), the Complainant had prayed to the Commission to "receive and inquire into this matter as a grievous one under s.18(1)(f) and grant her opportunity to submit additional facts and documents".
2. The Complainant is filing this Supplementary Affidavit to bring on record the following and to pray for specific directions in their light:
   • (a) Purported reply dated 30.03.06 to her requests under section 4 that is variously evasive, misleading, incomplete and inaccurate. Copy of this is at Annexure-7
   • (b) Patently incomplete and misleading information in a new section titled Right to Information Act (accessible from a new link at the bottom of Public Information page previously filed as Annexure-1) added on DMRC website in purported compliance of section-4(1)(b). Description of this is at Annexure-8.

PRAYER

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:

(a) Direct DMRC to rectify, inter alia, the following omissions under section 4(1)(b):

• i. non-publication of information under s.4(1)(d)(xiii) ("particulars of recepients of concessions, permits and authorisations granted by it") even as the same is central to its large scale development activities;
• ii. non-publication of information under s.4(1)(b)(xii) ("the manner of execution of subsidy programmes...") even as the same is central to subsidized tariffs;
• iii. non-publication of information of Delhi Metro Railways Act, 2002, in information under s.4(1)(b)(i), under which are published only scanned copies of unspecified document setting out some other "Main object (functions and duties)" and of two dim organograms (Annexure-8-a);
• iv. non-publication of department-wise duties of officers and employees under s.4(1)(b)(ii) ("powers and duties ..."), for which only powers in terms of financial limits for awarding works, etc, are published (Annexure-8-b);
• v. non-publication of department-wise details under s.4(1)(b)(xi) ("budget allocated to each of its agency..."), for which only work-item-wise summary budget for 2005-06 and broad financial plan for phase-1 are published (Annexure-8-c);
• vi. non-publication of specific information under s.4(1)(b)(iii), (v) and (v), for which are published only vague remarks like "All major decisions are taken by the board of Directors. Day to day affairs are managed by the managing director who is assisted by four functional directors" and "DMRC discharges its functions in accordance with rules..., etc decided by it from time-to time" (even as Metro Act requires rules made by Central govt, etc);
• vii. non-publication of specific information under s.4(1)(b)(vi) ("a statement of the categories of documents ..."), for which is published only that "The documents held by DMRC include files on subjects dealt with by DMRC and service documents of its officials";
• viii. non-publication of specific information under s.4(1)(b)(viii) ("a statement of the boards, councils, committees..."), for which are published only vague remarks short even of particulars of all Board members.

(b) Direct DMRC to ensure, in the above, publication of information requested by the Complainant apropos, inter alia, financial plan (e-mails dated 25.10.05, 08.11.05, 02.01.06, 12.01.06) and consultancy activities (25.10.05, 08.11.05, 02.01.06);

(c) Direct DMRC to publish under section 4(2) information requested by the Complainant apropos statutory provisions under which DMRC issued EIA Public Notice on 06.01.06 (e-mail dated 07.01.06), public consultation procedures (25.10.05, 08.11.05, 07.01.06), mandatory permissions for further constructions (02.01.06, 07.01.06), etc;

(d) Direct DMRC to furnish to the Complainant relevant facts / reasons for administrative decisions relating to hosting visits to Shastri Park for College of Defence Management and for Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and companion judges and to acceptance / publicity of academic / professional honours for DMRC MD for DMRC work, requested under section 4(1)(d) vide e-mails dated 18.10.05, 12.01.06 and 17.01.06);

(e) Impose penalties on DMRC Managing Director / functional directors, who manage day to day affairs, for lackadaisical compliance of section-4 and for persistent refusal of requests to publish / provide information under section-4; and

(f) Issue any other directions as the Hon'ble Commission deems appropriate.

GROUNDS

In making the afore-said prayers the Complainant relies on provisions of section-4 being mandatory and their non-compliance tantamount to obstruction of meaningful resort to section-6 and, apropos the purported reply dated 30.03.06 (Annexure-7) to her requests, also on the following among other Grounds:

1. Because in item-1 PIO has provided evasive and misleading reply to request dated 18.10.05 for publication under section 4(1)(c) of relevant facts of "decision, announced by the press on 18.10.05, to host (College of Defence Management's) visit to, primarily, Shastri Park". With reference to the site being sub-judice and to representation about it to Hon'ble President, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, it was specifically stated that "I believe an impropriety has occurred and I do not believe that the College of Defence Management would have participated in it knowingly". PIO has merely asserted that no decision affecting the public was involved. He has not clarified why, then, press was informed or the request not treated u/s.4(1)(d). He has also conveyed that the plan / itinerary was decided by CDM, without substantiating that suggestion;
2. Because in joint item-2&3 PIO has evaded reply to requests dated 25.10.05 and 8.11.05 to publish under section 4(1)(b) r/w s.4(2) information of (a) statutory basis and award details of DMRC consultancies for Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai, (b) details / basis of its financial plan recommendations for Kochi, and (c) public hearing processes being followed by DMRC. PIO has merely said that Kochi hearing was arranged by state govt and DMRC participated only to clarify technical points.
3. Because in item-4 PIO has evaded request dt 02.01.06 to confirm rejection of prior requests and, thereby, clarification of why that information is not liable to be published;
4. Because in item-4 PIO has evaded, and thereby refused without reason, request dt 02.01.06 for "whatever information is available in electronic format with you (in terms of s.4(4) of RTI Act). In regard to s.4(1)(b) ... about only the property development / disposal, consultancy and PR departments and Board of DMRC".
5. Because in item-4b PIO has obfuscated refusal of requests to publish information of Financial Plan with false assertion that the same "has been uploaded on the website". On the website a "Financial Plan for Phase-I" (same as indicated in item-6 of the reply) is reached by click-path: Home > Corporate > Public Information > Right to Information Act > 11.Budget allocated to various activities in the financial year 2005-06 > Financial Plan for Phase-I. This is just a 3-d pie-chart indicating percentages from 4 sources. Not only does this not qualify to be called Financial Plan for a massive project, the figures also do not tally with those published on Delhi Govt website (previously filed as Annexure-3) and funding heads do not tally with annual budget heads (Annexure-8-c).
6. Because in item-4c PIO has obfuscated refusal of requests to publish information of consultancy activities with the misleading assertion that "DMRC by its memoranda and articles of association is permitted to undertake consultancy works in other states / cities". The requests starting 25.10.05 had specifically sought statutory basis / regime "in terms of Delhi Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002" (not prior MoA) and of organisational structure for consultancy. It is pertinent that the annual budget 2005-06 now published on DMRC website (Annexure-8-c) has a "Consultancy Business Area" head showing receipts of 6 crores and expenditure of 5 crores.
7. Because in item-4 a&d PIO has refused information of permits for constructions proceeding on riverbed in a sub-judice matter on plea of the matter being sub-judice, which is not a reason for refusal under section-8 and was, in fact, the grounds on which the Complainant had sought the information, being the petitioner. Her writ petition is in the matter of disposal by due process of her objections in response to three statutory Public Notices for proposals to modify Delhi Master Plan to allow metro property development by unspecified techno-financial plan. Constructions without building permit affect the Complainant as they contribute to making her petition infructuous. However, unauthorised construction is not circumscribed by the Complainant's writ petition and invites action by law as well as by current court orders in well-known PIL and, as such, is information liable to be disclosed also to partners and investors in DMRC property development. The PIO reply suggests that the constructions are proceeding without mandatory permissions, which would make the denial of information malafide.
8. Because in item-5c in reply to request dt 07.01.06 PIO has falsely claimed that information of statutory provisions under which it issued Public Notice dt 06.01.06 to invite suggestions on Ph.2 EIA has been loaded on the website. The website has only the report commissioned by DMRC. Statutory EIA procedures require Public Notice to by competent authority for hearings before submission to MoEF for clearance.
9. Because in item-6 apropos request dated 12.01.06 - which was only to ask, in context of dis-connect between PR and official website, if DMRC had exemption from RTI Act - PIO has not clarified why relevant facts of decisions announced in the press are not available on the website. Two types of common press reports were cited in the request, viz, finance (including exemptions from taxes, etc) and awards and honours for DMRC MD. About the former PIO has made some vague assertions and said nothing about the latter. It is pertinent that the Complainant had specifically said, in request dt 08.11.05, "the exceptional PR activities of DMRC raise greater expectations from it in respect of RTI" and PIO is also Chief Public Relations Officer of the DMRC.
10. Because PIO has not replied to request dated 17.01.06 for relevant facts / reasons for decisions relating to the metro visit, including to Shastri Park, hosted by the DMRC on 15.01.06 for Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and his companion judges.

sd/-

COMPLAINANT