Are you curious about public infrastructure projects in your city, like automated car parking facilities? Many citizens have questions about how government bodies and related organizations function. The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers you to seek such information. This article explores a case where an RTI applicant sought details about automated car parking, and what the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled, offering valuable insights for your own RTI journey.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant filed a request with Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit System (DIMTS) Ltd., seeking specific information concerning automated car parking facilities in various locations. The applicant’s goal was to understand the development, implementation, or operational aspects of these parking systems. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of DIMTS Ltd. initially responded that DIMTS Ltd. is not a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the PIO returned the RTI fee and the application to the applicant, effectively refusing to provide the requested information.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO of DIMTS Ltd. was a denial of information based on their assertion of not being a ‘Public Authority’. This is a common tactic used organizations to avoid disclosing information. The PIO returned the application and the fee, indicating a refusal to engage with the RTI request. This is where the applicant had to escalate the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC) to challenge this denial.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the CIC, the applicant presented a strong case. They highlighted that DIMTS Ltd.’s own website declared it as a joint venture company with a 50% equity share from the Government of NCT of Delhi. Furthermore, the applicant argued that DIMTS Ltd. is substantially financed funds, making it a ‘Public Authority’ as defined under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act. The respondent (DIMTS Ltd.) acknowledged that a previous decision CIC and a single bench of the Delhi High Court had indeed declared DIMTS Ltd. as a public authority. However, they also mentioned that DIMTS Ltd. had appealed this decision, and a Division Bench of the High Court had issued a stay order. This stay order meant that only information not pertaining to DIMTS itself could be disclosed. The respondent also stated that since most of the information sought related to the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), the application was forwarded to the PIO of NDMC. The applicant, however, confirmed that they had not received any response from the PIO of NDMC.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, after hearing both sides, made a crucial decision. The Commission directed the PIO of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to provide the information available with them to the applicant. This means that for the parts of the information that fell under NDMC’s purview, the applicant would receive a response. Regarding the disclosure of information specifically pertaining to DIMTS Limited, the CIC stated that a final decision would be taken once the Division Bench of the High Court pronounced its judgment on whether DIMTS Ltd. is indeed a Public Authority or not. This order is significant because it ensures that the applicant does not face a complete stonewall and that at least some of their queries are addressed, while also acknowledging the ongoing legal proceedings that might determine the status of DIMTS Ltd. under the RTI Act.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence is Key: Even when an organization claims it’s not a Public Authority, don’t give up. Gather evidence from their own websites or public records to prove otherwise and present it to the CIC.
- Lesson 2: Understand ‘Public Authority’: Familiarize yourself with Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Organizations that are owned, controlled, or substantially financed government are often considered Public Authorities, even if they are registered as private companies.
- Lesson 3: Escalate When Necessary: If your initial RTI application is rejected or you don’t receive a satisfactory response, don’t hesitate to file a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal to the CIC. The CIC is your recourse for ensuring your right to information is upheld.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or organization is most likely to hold the information you seek. If you’re unsure, you can file with a department that seems relevant, and they may transfer it to the correct authority.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request in simple, precise language. Avoid vague terms. Clearly mention the subject matter, such as ‘automated car parking facilities.’
- Include Necessary Details: Provide your contact information and attach the prescribed RTI fee (usually Rs. 10). If you are below the poverty line, you are exempt from the fee.
- Submit and Track: Submit your application to the designated PIO. Keep a copy for your records and note the date of submission. If you don’t receive a response within 30 days (or 35 days if transferred), you can file a First Appeal.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide details of any automated car parking projects undertaken or planned department/organization in the last five years, including project cost, implementation status, and operational details.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of the RTI Act in accessing information about public projects. Even when faced with initial resistance, citizens have the power to pursue their right to information. the nuances of the RTI Act and being persistent, you can effectively seek information that matters to you and contributes to transparency and accountability in governance. Remember, your right to know is a powerful tool for informed citizenship.
