About rti

Dear Doctor,

Pune-based Sanjay Shirodkar had filed an RTI application seeking information about the cost of Bisleri bottles. He claimed that bottles were being sold at rates higher than the MRP at Mumbai International Airport.   The Bisleri manufacturer, however, refused to answer Shirodkar’s queries saying that it was a private company and therefore did not fall under the purview of RTI Act.  But the CIC held that Bisleri Manufacturer is bound to give information to the public. It might be privately run but it is a public utlity. Since yours is a hospital, may be private hospital, but as it is said, Public Health.

1. Since you are engaged in "Public Activities" and reporting to various "Public Authorities" you come under RTI Act.
   
2. You are bound to give information as per information definition contained in the Act 2005 if information touches base of “larger public interest”.

I request Mr Nandagopal Rao to please intimate the decision number of CIC in Bisleri case (as mentioned by him) as the same is badly needed by undersigned for similiar petition coming up before Hon'ble CIC in a fortnight's time.

thanks

hd

The Central Information Commission (“the CIC”) in a recent order – that of ref.: Sanjay Ramesh Shirodkar v. Mumbai International Airport Limited, Complaint No. CIC/ MA/C/ 2008/000195/SS (“the MIAL Order”), has brought Mumbai International Airport Limited (“MIAL”), which operates the Mumbai airport within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”). MIAL has therefore become one of the first private entities to be brought within the jurisdiction of the RTI Act (there is a 2007 order of the CIC in the case of Anil Hebb v. Airport Authority of India, order dated January 17, 2007, holding that the Delhi International Airport Limited (“DIAL”) is also subject to the RTI Act).

The facts of the case are not really relevant for the final decision of the CIC but it seems that Sanjay Shirodkar had made a complaint about the cost of Bisleri bottled water being sold on the MIAL premises. When MIAL refused to provide information under the RTI Act, the case was filed.

I find the decision rather controversial for reasons; according to the CIC order, every private company developing public infrastructure or which has been awarded a project under a concession agreement would have to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The objectives of the RTI Act are to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities, not regulate private entities. The MIAL Order however, is so widely worded that almost every infrastructure project can now be considered a “Public Authority” for the purpose of the RTI Act. 

I also find Mr. Rao's reply slightly different to the query; it was not Bisleri Company (Parle) that refused but fact of the matter is that it was MIAL that refused to reply to Complainant hence the annexed Order for generic clarity!

However the CIC decision is annexed in PDF file format for generic use.

Mr Tajobsindia,

Thank you.

Are you sure that this decision of Hon'ble CIC is not stayed by Hon'ble HC as i have not been to find the same. Kindly enlighten.

harinder dhingra

@ Bhaisahab!

You asked showing urgency about the CIC decision, same I placed within 1 hour seeing a queriest urgency.

Now the moment you ask me to clarify next BIG question I feel it comes under preview of legal consultation fees based remedy! I mean that is my view keeping free for all LCI portal spirit in proportion to commercial natures at the end of the day J

[Any informed rebuttal(s) to this genuine reply straight from once dharma are welcome J]

Mr. Tajobsindia,

Sir,

Thanks for prompt reply and all the clarifications.

God Bless You,

hd