Hearty congratulations to Mr Venkatesh for seeking an insight into PPP projects. Since May 2010, I have been touching upon early importance of re-vamping our National E Governance Plan (NEGP) of 2005 vintage to include tendering, evaluating, ordering, execution and monitoring all PPPs based projects and their O&M to build transparency in the handling of a $ trillion outlay in the current 5 year plan by the Govt. This has gone in vain even though privately some top bureaucrats agree to this proposition. Mr Venkatesh, you have hit upon the most sensitive area where it pains the maximum to the Govt. I think, this is just the beginning of the situation never experienced in our country earlier. Just like the developed countries also went through a transition and are now happily enjoying the fruits of transparency, we too would start seeing this in India. The only way is to maintain the pressure by exercising our rights. This is where the well experienced Mr Sarbajit can also guide the members while we are in transition. The country when in total transparency in spending huge public money in an e governance era would heave a sigh of relief from such scourge. Until that, experts like Mr Sarbajit would be required to contribute more and more to help the info seekers under the aegis of RTI.
Jai Hind.
With warm regards,
Col Mahesh Khera
Founder KTMT, India
Premium Partner and Leader of Global Consulting Management Platforms
Phone - +91-120-4318375, +91-120-2450197
Mob - +91-9310716167
VOIP - +1 973-551-3246
Skype- mahesh.khera
Mail - mahesh.khera@ktmt.in
- mahesh@locationlabs.com
Web - http://www.ktmt.in
Convergence has enabled many telecom companies to serve digitalized societies by multi play@ of voice, High Speed Internet, GDP growth driving apps, streaming TV, mobile and fixed mobile convergence for their daily business, work, location, safety, security, governance, social, and entertainment needs.
@MPVNO, NTOC, JEC and JNS are SMs of KTMT
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2011 7:29 AM
Subject: [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.
No comments:
Post a Comment