RTI Judgement Series
RTI Judgement Series: Appellant compensated with Rs5,000 for loss and detriment in receiving ration card

The appellant did not receive information or his ration card from the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in the GNCTD. The CIC directed the PIO to pay a compensation of Rs5,000 for the loss and detriment suffered by the appellant. This is the 138th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the additional commissioner of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies (DFCS) under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to inquire into a matter where the appellant was neither provided information nor his ration card within a specified time.

 

While giving this judgement on 4 February 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “Prima-facie it appears that the appellant has been deprived of his entitlement and there may be a possibility of corrupt practices being responsible for this. For the loss and detriment suffered by him the Commission under its powers under Section 19 (8)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act orders compensation of Rs5,000 to be paid to the appellant.”

 

New Delhi resident Ram Asrey, on 19 April 2010, sought information about his ration card from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of DFCS. Here is the information he sought under the RTI Act.

 

1. Has my BPL card been renewed?

2. Yes or NO?

3. If yes, provide the new number for my BPL card

4. If not, has my BPL card renewal been rejected? Yes or no?

5. If yes, why have not I been provided with the rejection letter?

6. If no, then why have I not received my BPL card?

7. Certified copy of appellant’s application as submitted in 2007

8. Name, designation, phone number, office timings of the officials working in Circle 7.

9. What action would be taken against the officials who have harassed me?

 

The PIO did not provide any information. Asrey, then filed his first appeal.

 

During the hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the appellant stated that since he shifted his residence from one circle to another. He said, he had deposited his below poverty line (BPL) ration card in Bawana circle and has not received his renewed ration card due to which he has to procure ration on slips.

 

The FAA said, in these circumstances, the case was considered under Clause 11(2) of the PDS Control Order, 2001. He then directed the appellant (Asrey) to contact food security officer (FSO) in Circle 7 for submission of requisite documents. The FAA also directed the inspector to carry out a field visit and, if found eligible, may processed issuance of BPL card.

 

Asrey, then approached the CIC with his second appeal citing non-supply of correct and complete information by the PIO.

 

During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that the deemed PIO Ajit Singh to be lying shamelessly. The PIO claimed that on 19 July 2010 he sent the information to Asrey. However, the order issued by the FAA on 29 July 2010 did not mention about any reply sent by the PIO.

 

Asrey, the appellant informed the CIC that on 3 October 2010, somebody delivered the information at his residence. According to the information, a BPL card no18120080 was issued in the name of the appellant. But Asrey claimed that he never received any card. Mr Gandhi said, “...it appears that sending this information late and trying to avoid it to the appellant may be due to malafide reasons.”

 

The bench, then directed RTL D'Souza, the additional commissioner of DFCS to inquire into who has got BPL Card no18120080 which was claimed to have been issued and whether any ration has been issued against this card.

 

While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi said, “If rationing has been issued against this card appropriate action should be taken. Mr D'Souza will send the inquiry report to the appellant and the commission before 30 November 2010.”

 

The bench said, it was apparent that the appellant had been suffering since he had not got his entitlement and the information had also not been supplied to him. “In view of this the Commission decides that the appellant must be compensated for the harassment faced by him in pursuing this matter. For the loss and detriment suffered by him the Commission, under its powers under Section 19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act orders compensation of Rs5,000 to be paid to the appellant,” the CIC said in its order.

 

Mr Gandhi further said, from the facts before the bench, it was apparent that the deemed PIO was guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days. He then issued a show cause notice to the PIO and directed him to give his reasons to the CIC to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002657/10037

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_002657_10037_M_45470.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002657

 

Appellant                                            : Ram Asrey

                                                                  Delhi-110039

                                                                         

Respondent                                     : Ajay Arora

                                                              PIO & Asst. Commissioner

                                                              Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies

                                                              GNCTD, Deptt. of Food & Civil Supplies

                                                              C Block, Pocket C, Shalimar

                                                              Bagh, Delhi

User

Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans-Harbour Link: The story of unrealistic bidding and spiralling cost

In less than 10 years, the cost of Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link has gone to about Rs10,000 crore from Rs4,000 crore. After some unrealistic bidding in the initial stages, at present not a single bidder is willing to submit a bid for the project that would reduce commuting time between Mumbai and Navi Mumbai

It has been 43 years since the Mumbai Trans-Harbour Link (MTHL) project was first proposed. The MTHL project also known as Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link, a 22 km freeway grade road bridge was expected to reduce commuting time between Mumbai and Navi Mumbai and provide direct connectivity to Mumbai Port Trust (MPT), Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and the proposed Navi Mumbai international airport. Unfortunately, unrealistic bidding by consortiums, especially from both Mukesh and Anil Ambani led consortiums and objections raised by environmental activists as well as JNPT, have only doubled the cost over the years.

 

The first real attempt to make this project a reality was made in 2004, when IL&FS submitted a proposal to implement the project on a build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) basis. State-run Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) also submitted a counter proposal. Although the proposal by IL&FS was discussed by the government, it was side-lined for reasons best known to the authorities.
 

Then in 2005, MSRDC invited bids for the project. However, the process to receive bids and award the project went on till 2009. A consortium of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group

    How the cost shot up
The cost of the MTHL has increased several times. In 2005, the cost of the project was estimated at Rs4,000 crore. The cost was revised to Rs6,000 crore in 2008. It was then increased to Rs8,800 crore in November 2011 and finally to Rs9,360 crore in August 2012.

In January 2013, the union government sanctioned Rs1,920 crore,  which is 20% of the project cost, in viability gap for the MTHL project. The State Government will also contribute the same amount while the winner is expected to pull in the rest. This also means, the cost of the project has not gone up to Rs9,600 crore, a whopping 240% from the estimated cost of Rs4,000 in just 10 years.

company Reliance Energy (REL) and Hyundai Engineering Construction Company quoted a concession period of nine years and 11 months against 75 years quoted by Mukesh Ambani's Sea King Infrastructure, the only other bidder left in the fray. Significantly, in 2004, the MSRDC taking into consideration the 30-year concession period for the Mumbai-Pune Expressway, had estimated a 35-year concession period for the Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link project. At that time the cost of the project was estimated at Rs4,000 crore.

 

Interestingly, the REL-Hyundai consortium was disqualified at the technical bid stage as Hyundai did not meet the criteria of $200 million networth as per the bid documents. Even L&T Gammon Industries and IFFCO, the other bidders opted out of the race leaving Sea King as the only bidder, says a report from Business Standard.

 

However, according to the report, the REL-Hyundai consortium challenged the disqualification in court and got a favourable verdict from the Supreme Court. The apex court granted the consortium 90 days to submit its bid that ended on 15 December 2007, the report said.

 

Although the REL-Hyundai consortium won the bid, MSRDC itself was not sure about viability of such a low concession period. MSRDC then re-evaluated the winning bid through London-based Dar Consultants. Business Standard, in a report quoted, the then minister for public works and MSRDC chairman Anil Deshmukh as saying, “The concession periods demanded by both brothers seem to be unrealistic.”

 

Deshmukh also told Mumbai Mirror that both bids seemed frivolous in nature, and that a final decision would be taken based on the report submitted by the consultants to MSRDC.

 

Concessional period for a project is the time taken to complete the project, collect the toll to cover the cost, and then hand over the project to the government.

 

The state government then decided to invite fresh bids for the project in 2008. Although, the fresh round of bidding saw as many as 13 companies evince interest in the project, none submitted bids. At that time the cost of the project was revised to Rs6,000 crore.

 

Then in 2011, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) stepped into the scenario. In August, MMRDA appointed Arup Consultancy Engineers and KPMG to conduct the techno-economic feasibility of the Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link. Again, the cost of the project was increased to Rs8,800 crore from original estimate of Rs4,000 crore.

 

In May 2012, the MMRDA shortlisted five consortia out of six that had expressed interest in the project. They are Cintra-SOMA-Srei, Gammon Infrastructure Projects -OHL, Concessions-GS Engineering, GMR Infrastructure-L&T -Samsung C&T Corp, IRB Infrastructure Developers-Hyundai, and Tata Realty and Infrastructure-Autostrade Indian Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd-Vinci Concessions Development V Pte Ltd.

 

In the meantime, the cost of Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link was again revised to Rs9,360 crore in August 2012.

 

On 22 October 2012, Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan gave clearance to the project. Next day, the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) gave a conditional environmental clearance to the sea link project. Some of the conditions were that the MMRDA should put up noise barriers, replant five times the number of mangroves destroyed, no dredging and reclamation, use construction equipment with exhaust silencers and work in consultation with the Bombay Natural History Society to minimize the impact on migratory birds.

 

October 2012 turned out to be an eventful month for the Sewri-Nhava Sheva Trans Harbour Link. Following the clearances from the state government and MoEF, on 31st October, the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) also granted an in-principle approval for the MTHL. The DEA recommended granting Rs1,920 crore with a concession period of 35 years for the project.

 

On 9 November 2012, the state government issued a state-support agreement and a toll notification for the project. The empowered committee approved viability gap funding (VGF) for MTHL on 12 December 2012. Later on 18 January 2013, union finance minister P Chidambaram cleared the project. 

 

Although the MMRDA shortlisted five consortiums for the project, so far is has not received any bids. According a report in the Times of India, the state government has finally decided to construct the Mumbai Trans-Harbour Link on its own if it does not receive a bid on 5 August 2013.

 

Quoting UPS Madan, metropolitan commissioner, MMRDA, the report said, “...this time the government will not let the project fall for want of funds. If we do not receive any bids on August 5 then we shall go on our own”.

 

In January 2013, the union government sanctioned Rs1,920 crore,  which is 20% of the project cost, in viability gap for the MTHL project. The state government will also contribute the same amount while the winner is expected to pull in the rest.

 

This also means, the cost of the project has not gone up to Rs9,600 crore, a whopping 240% from the estimated cost of Rs4,000 in just 10 years. Unfortunately, it is the common people who will have to foot the bill either directly (through toll) or indirectly (through various taxes).

 

User

COMMENTS

raghav uchil

4 years ago

It is same story all over again. Be it dams or trans harbour bridges or SEZ projects, cost escalation is the way forward to siphone off tax payers money. They have become hard skinned inspite of possible CBI enquiry later on.

India produces record pulses in 2012-13; foodgrain output down

The record pulses production augurs well for the country which depends on imports to meet the shortfall of around 3-4 MT. Higher supply will reduce imports and also prices

India has achieved a record pulses production of 18.45 million tonnes (MT) in the 2012-13 crop year ended June. However, foodgrain output fell by 1.5% to 255.36 MT due to drought in some states last year.

 

The agriculture ministry today released the fourth advance estimates of foodgrain production for 2012-13.

 

Pulses output has been revised upward to record 18.45 MT in 2012-13 as compared with 18 MT in the third estimates released in May. Pulses output stood at 17.09 MT in 2011-12.

 

The record pulses production augurs well for the country which depends on imports to meet the shortfall of around 3-4 MT. Higher supply will reduce imports and also prices. Higher support price prompted farmers to grow pulses.

 

“As per the latest estimates, India has produced 255.36 MT of foodgrain during the 2012-13,” an official statement said.

 

The foodgrain output is same as it was in the third estimate, but it is lower than the record 259.29 MT achieved in the 2011-12 crop year (July-June).

 

In the foodgrain category, rice production has been revised upward to 104.4 MT from 104.22 MT in the third estimates. However, rice output is lower at 105.3 MT compared with 2011-12.

 

Coarse cereals production estimates have also been revised upward at 40.06 MT in 2012-13 from 39.52 MT in the third estimate, but it is still lower than the previous year's 42.01 MT.

 

However, wheat output has been revised downward to 92.46 MT from 93.62 MT in the third estimate. Production stood at record 94.88 MT in 2011-12.

 

Foodgrain output in 2012-13 is lower than previous year due to poor monsoon in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan.

 

However, the production is expected to rebound this year as the country is currently receiving good monsoon and sowing area has exceeded last year's level so far.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)