RTI Judgement Series
RTI Judgement Series: PIO wrongly denied information claiming it is over 20 years old

The CIC said after the lapse of twenty years, exemptions provided in the RTI Act under Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and other seven exemptions will not apply. This is the 137th 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 Public Information Officer (PIO) and joint assessor and collector in the Assessment and collection department at Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), to provide property numbers in Mohalla Doonger Shahadra to the appellant.


While giving this judgement on 4 February 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “The PIO has interpreted Section 8(3) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act completely opposite to what it means. After the lapse of twenty years exemptions provided in Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and the other seven exemptions will not apply.”


New Delhi resident Baldev Raj, on 30 July 2009, sought from the PIO a list of municipal numbers of Mohalla Doonger Shahadra before 1951 and wanted to know if new numbers were allotted by municipal committee after 1951.


The PIO did not furnish the information stating, "The information is more than 20 yrs old which attracts section 8(3) of RTI Act, 2005".


Raj, the applicant, filed his first appeal. In its order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), directed the PIO to collect the information from Town Planning officer & provide to the appellant within 30 days. 


However, the PIO did not furnish the information. Raj then approached the CIC with his second appeal.


During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted that after the order of the FAA, the PIO on 30 November 2009 informed the appellant that the information sought by him is not available with Town Planning Department either.


The Bench said, "The PIO has wrongly denied information on the ground that it is over 20 years old. The PIO has interpreted Section 8(3) completely opposite to what it means."


Section 8(3) of the RTI Act states...

"Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:"


Mr Gandhi said, after the lapse of twenty years exemptions provided in Section 8 (1) (a), (c) and (i) apply, and the other seven exemptions will not apply.


Subsequently after the FAA's order, the Town Planning Department has stated that MCD had not allotted numbers to properties. The appellant insisted that MCD must allot numbers to all properties but the PIO stated that MCD does not have the information on property numbers. 


While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi directed the PIO to give the property numbers to Raj before 28 February 2010. If these (numbers) are not on records anywhere in MCD, then the PIO will state it in the reply, the CIC said.




Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003168/6698


Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003168


Appellant                                            : Baldev Raj

                                                                New Delhi-110006


Respondent                                         : SC Yadav

                                                               PIO & Joint Assessor and Collector

                                                               Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                               Assessment and Collection Department (HQ)

                                                              Property tax building, Ring Road,

                                                              Lajpat Nagar-III,

                                                              New Delhi-110024


FDI (Foreign Disasters Invited) by our own mismanagement and politics!

The relaxation in FDI caps announced a couple of days ago was preceded by two major FDI withdrawals, by Posco and ArcelorMittal, all due to our own folly of having too many rules, too many departments, ministries and agencies that only create obstacles

Even before the impact of the very bold decision taken by the Indian government to allow 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) in selected areas like defence and telcos, disaster struck in a different form. Invoking the Nixonian term ‘shockus’, these came in the form of Posco’s pull out from Karnataka and ArcelorMittal’s from Odisha. It will take a few days before we could feel the impact and the ramifications that are bound to follow.


Way back in 2008, Posco, Asia's third largest steel maker from South Korea sought mining rights for iron-ore rich Bellary district in Karnataka, estimated to have a reserve of 100 million tonnes and was approved by the state government in 2010 when the memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed. Site survey and notification of land followed at Halligundi village in Gadag district, where 3,400 acres of land had been identified for the plant.

 Pre-notification of land and no objection from villages completed in June and July, 2011. Although the minimum requirement is to obtain consent of at least 70% of local residents, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Bank (KIADB) secured 85% consent, despite the opposition from some religious leaders and villages. But the land acquisition was stopped by the then Chief Minister, BS Yeddurappa. One would like to know on what grounds?


This $5 billion (about Rs32,000 crore) steel plant work came to a stand-still and after waiting for over two years, Posco decided to withdraw from the scene, and rightly so!  Perhaps, they wanted to concentrate on the $12 billion steel mill in Odisha.


By a strange coincidence, ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel maker, likewise, decided to scrap its proposed 12 million tonnes steel plant in Odisha, after experiencing the delays in getting land and failing to secure captive iron ore resources.


ArcelorMittal had planned to construct an integrated steel plant and captive power plant in Keonjhar district.  It may be recalled that the MoU was signed in 2006 and they had carried out preliminary work for the project. However, the seven-year itch ended because of the inordinate delays experienced.


However, like Posco is going ahead with work in Odisha, Arcelor-Mittal also proposes to continue work in projects in Jharkhand and Karnataka. It is hoped that the state governments concerned and the various organizations involved in issuing clearances do not play around anymore, and get on to serious work to ensure no further hiccups anywhere.


They have officially claimed in their plans to scrap this project in Odisha that such delays are unacceptable, which make the project unviable. The steel industry, worldwide is in the doldrums and this may have also influenced their decision.


Prima facie, it must be accepted that such delays would discourage other foreign participants and direct investments would be put on the back burner. 


Assurances have no meaning unless the words are fully supported by action. In India, we have too many rules, too many departments, ministries, and agencies that create obstacles at all levels in our progress. 


One window clearance, a concept proposed a few decades ago is still a pipe dream because no one really wants to take responsibility to lead and act in a practical and realistic manner.  In the writer's view these agencies and departments have been created to "safe-guard" the interest of those in power and do not really look at the national interest.


It is time someone totally independent does an audit on those organizations that issue ‘clearances’ of one kind or another because serious work gets stalled at these points.


(AK Ramdas had worked with the Engineering Export Promotion Council under the ministry of commerce. He was associated also with various committees at the Council. His international career took him to places like Beirut, Kuwait and Dubai at a time when these were small trading outposts; and later to the US.)


Using outdated data, FEMA is wrongly placing homeowners in flood zones

Homeowners in the US have to bear the cost of fixing the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA's mistakes

When Donna Edgar found out that new flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would place her house in a high-risk flood zone, she couldn’t believe it.

Her home, on the ranch she and her husband own in Texas hill country about 60 miles north of Austin, sits well back from the nearby Lampasas River.

“Her house is on a hill,” said Herb Darling, the director of environmental services for Burnet County, where Edgar lives. “There’s no way it’s going to flood.”

Yet the maps, released last year, placed the Edgars in what FEMA calls a “special flood hazard area.” Homeowners in such areas are often required, and always encouraged, to buy federal flood insurance, which the Edgars did.

FEMA eventually admitted the maps were wrong. But it took Edgar half a dozen engineers (many of whom volunteered their time), almost $1,000 of her own money and what she called an “ungodly number of hours” of research and phone calls over the course of a year to prove it.

Edgars is far from alone.

From Maine to Oregon, local floodplain managers say FEMA’s recent flood maps — which dictate the premiums that 5.5 million Americans pay for flood insurance — have often been built using outdated, inaccurate data. Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes.

“It’s been a mess,” Darling said. “It’s been a headache for a lot of people.”

Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office gets calls “almost on a daily basis” from homeowners who say they’ve been mapped in high-risk flood areas in error. More often than not, he said, their complaints have merit. “There’s a lot of people who have a new map that’s unreliable,” he said.

Maps built with out-of-date data can also result in homeowners at risk of flooding not knowing the threat they face.

FEMA is currently finalizing new maps for Fargo, N.D., yet the maps don’t include any recent flood data, said April Walker, the city engineer, including from when the Red River overran its banks in 1997, 2009 and 2011. Those floods were the worst in Fargo’s history.

Fargo has more recent data, Walker said, but FEMA hasn’t incorporated it.

It’s unclear exactly how many new maps FEMA has issued in recent years are at least partly based on older data. While FEMA’s website allows anybody to look-up flood maps for their areas, the agency’s maps don’t show the age of the underlying data.

FEMA’s director of risk analysis, Doug Bellomo, said it was “very rare” for the agency to digitize the old paper flood maps without updating some of the data. “We really don’t go down the road” of simply digitizing old maps, he said.

FEMA did not respond to questions about the maps for Fargo or other specific areas.

State and local floodplain officials pointed to examples where FEMA had issued new maps based at least in part on outdated data. The reason, they said, wasn’t complicated.

“Not enough funding, pure and simple,” Young said.

Using new technology, FEMA today is able to gather far more accurate elevation data than it could in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the old flood maps were made. Lidar, in which airplanes map terrain by firing laser pulses at the ground, can provide data that’s 10 times more accurate than the old methods.

Lidar is also expensive. Yet as we’ve reported, Congress, with the support of the White House, has actually cut map funding by more than half since 2010, from $221 million down to $100 million this year.

With limited funding, FEMA has concentrated on updating maps for the populated areas along the coasts. In rural areas, “it’s sort of a necessary evil to reissue maps with older data on them,” said Sally McConkey, an engineer with the Illinois State Water Survey at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has a contract with FEMA to produce flood maps in the state.

When old maps are digitized, mapmakers try to match up road intersections visible on them with the ones seen in modern satellite imagery (similar to what you can see using Google Earth). But the old maps and the new imagery don’t always line up correctly, leading to what Alan R. Lulloff, the science services program director with the Association of State Floodplain Managers, called a “warping” effect.

“It can show areas that are actually on high ground as being in the flood hazard area when they’re not,” he said. “That’s the biggest problem.”

When FEMA issued new maps last year for Livingston Parish in Louisiana, near Baton Rouge, they included new elevation data. But the flood studies, said Eddie Aydell III, the chief engineer with Alvin Fairburn in Denham Springs, La., who examined the maps, were “a conglomeration of many different ancient engineering studies” dating from the 1980s to 2001. The mapmakers did not match up the new elevation data with the older data correctly, he said, making structures in the parish seem lower than they really are.

“It’s going to be a nightmare for the residents of our parish,” he said.

Bonnie Marston’s parents, Jim and Glynda Childs, moved to Andover, Maine, where Marston lives with her husband, in 2010 with the intention of building a house. But when they applied for a loan the bank told them that FEMA’s new flood maps for the county, issued the year before, had placed the land on which they planned to build in a special flood hazard area. The cost: a $3,200 annual flood insurance bill, which the Childs had to pay upfront.

Marston spent about $1,400 to hire a surveyor, who concluded her parents did not belong in a special flood hazard area. FEMA eventually removed the requirement for them to buy flood insurance — though it didn’t actually update the map. The bank refunded the flood insurance premium, but Marston said FEMA wouldn’t refund the cost of the survey.

“In my mind it’s a huge rip-off,” Marston said.

Edgar, 68, a retired IBM software developer, said she couldn’t understand why FEMA thought her house was suddenly at risk of flooding. When she called FEMA and asked, she said the agency couldn’t tell her.

“They just said, ‘You need to buy flood insurance,’” she said, and told her she could apply for what’s known as a letter of map amendment if she thought she’d been mapped into a special flood hazard area in error. She worried that being in a high-risk flood area would diminish the value of her home.

Her husband, Thomas, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, knew David R. Maidment, a civil engineering professor there who is an expert on flood insurance mapping. While she hired a surveyor and wrangled with FEMA, Maidment and several of his Ph.D. students drove up to the ranch to study it as a class project.

The experience, Maidment said, showed him “in a very small microcosm” the importance of using up-to-date elevation data in new maps. The Texas state government paid to map Burnet County, where the Edgars’ ranch is located, in 2011 using lidar. But FEMA’s new maps for the county don’t include the lidar data.

FEMA removed the Edgars from the special flood hazard area in March, but again it hasn’t actually changed the maps. Letters of map amendment acknowledge that FEMA’s maps were incorrect without actually changing them. While the Edgars don’t have to buy flood insurance, the new, inaccurate maps remain.

Darling, the county’s director of environmental services, said he had gotten calls from dozens of homeowners with similar complaints about the new flood maps.

“We’ve still got ‘em coming in,” he said.

The contractor that created the new maps appeared to have taken shortcuts in drawing them, Darling said. Without new lidar data, he added, issuing a new map is “just a waste of money.”

The experience, Edgar said, had left her feeling deeply frustrated, as a both homeowner and a taxpayer. FEMA hasn’t reimbursed her for the surveying costs or for the flood insurance premium she and her husband paid. “It falls to the homeowner to hire a professional engineer and pay” hundreds, even thousands, “to disprove what I would call their shoddy work,” she said. “I don’t think that’s fair.”

Courtesy: ProPublica.org



nagesh kini

3 years ago

Even the Yankees can goof!
In Mumbai you'd find the high and distant Malabar Hill in the High Risk Flood Zone.
Thank God our BMC and Disaster Mgmt. Authorities still work on British era manual mapping, many of which 'go missing' as the Mumbai Mun. Com. found recently after the Mahim Altaf Mansion crash, even Taj Hotel plans are not traceable!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



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)