[HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Dear Venkatesh

If the agreement for a commercial PPP contains a "confidentiality
clause" then exemption u/s 8(1)(d) squarely awaits to be invoked by a
PIO. The only strategy you have now is "larger public interest" and it
is a little too late to invoke it at CIC level

It is another thing entirely that Mr.Montek Singh can say anything he
wishes to say.

Sarbajit
(via HJ-GG)

On 12/9/11, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last month I had circulated an email alert relating to our efforts of
> testing the claim of the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission of
> India that any person can get a certified copy of the consession agreement
> relating to a public private partnership (PPP) project if the model
> concession agreement is followed. We had filed a test information request
> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Department of
> Ports, Government of Puducherry for the Puducherry Port PPP project. As no
> response was received for 30 days we filed a first appeal with the
> Department. The Department responded stating that a 'confidentiality
> agreement' in the concession agreement required them to consult with the
> third party, a private company based in Delhi. We now have a final decision
> in this matter.
>
> The First Appellate Authority has rejected our appeal stating as follows:
>
> "With reference to your appeal under Right to Information Act 2005 cited
> second above, I am to inform you that your request is not acceded as per
> Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005" (scanned copy of the rejection order is
> attached).
>
> The Planning Commission's bluff stands exposed. Despite the claim made by
> their Deputy Chairperson in his reply to the Chief Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. that any person can get a certified copy of
> the concession agreement from the department responsible for the PPP, this
> does not seem to be true in actual practice.
>
> What is wrong with the first appellate authority's order?
> The first appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without
> giving any detailed reasons. He has not given a speaking order as is the
> requirement under the RTI Act. A speaking order contains detailed reasons
> for the final decision made along with a weighing of the pros and cons in
> favour of and against disclosure. The first appellate authority has failed
> to mention any specific objections raised by the third party despite that
> procedure having been initiated. Even stranger is the absence of any date on
> the order of the appellate authority. Only the envelope containing the order
> sent to me mentions the date as 16/11/2011 along with the number of the
> letter. So the order is also invalid as it was issued 60 days after the
> submission of the appeal. Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act the first
> appellate authority is obligated to give a decision on a first appeal within
> 30 days. However the appellate authority may taken 15 more days but resons
> have to be recorded in the decision explaining the cause of delay. Even this
> requirement has not been complied with.
>
> So the Department of Ports, Puducherry has delivered a double whammy. It has
> not only falsified the claim of the Planning Commission's Deputy
> Chairperson, it has also flouted the provisions of the RTI Act without any
> compunction.
>
> We will file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission soon.
>
> I request all readers to similarly test transparency in PPPs in their own
> States.