On oral instructions, MTC loses more than a crore.

This happened before the elections. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) suddenly dropped fares without any prior intimation. It was evident that this was done with an eye on the elections. This was, of course, widely reported in the newspapers.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/Bus-fares-down-EC-not-amused/articleshow/4470040.cms
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/01/stories/2009050158450300.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/03/stories/2009050359930400.htm

This reduced fares were maintained for 4 days, but it was withdrawn, when EC came down heavily on this. As reported in the third article listed above, the MTC lost 35 lakhs on 30th April alone. I filed an RTI to know further information about this. The RTI application can be seen here. The replies I got to this can be seen here. Rough calculations (considering that May 1st was a public holiday, and that May 2nd and 3rd were Saturday and Sunday), MTC lost more than a crore on these 4 days. Considering that a bus costs roughly Rs.15 Lakhs, MTC could have added 6-7 buses to their fleet with this money. And it was wasted. Just because some politician asked MTC reduce fares just to please voters. I think what is more important to do in this case is to try nail down the responsibility of this reduction to one person and extract from him as to who exactly asked him to reduce fares. And then hope that it will serve as a lesson for others who want to interfere in the future. As is obvious from the reply, for questions 2-9 they have given a vague reply. I have filed a first appeal. Let me see if I get proper answers from them. If not, it will again be a long drawn out case, since I will have to approach the State Information Commission. This information was highlighted in The Hindu here. Actually, that I should file an RTI application, was itself suggested by Shyam of The Hindu. I think it will be a worthwhile cause to pursuse it to the end.

What is the shortest time needed for RTI to have effect?

Less than 24 hours is the answer. A colleague, Jayalakshmi told me that she had applied for an "Address Proof Card" which is being issued by the post offices on payment of Rs.240. She had applied for this in February, and she hasnt heard anything about it yet. Her repeated attempts to find out the status of her application at the Post Officer were only answered with "It will come". So she came to me. I told her that we can file an RTI applicaiton. And so I drafted an application, emailed her, asked her to fill in her details like address etc, enclose a copy of the receipt she obtained on payment of Rs.240 and asked her to enclose a Postal Order for Rs.10 as application fee. This she sent by post.

I gave the draft in the morning. She took a printout in the afternoon and sent it by post. The next morning at 10 AM she was at my place smiling. She said that the Post master there had called her and told her that the ID card was ready long time back and that she needs to go to the Mylapore office and collect the card. He also told her that she could have just come and asked him and as to where there was a need to file an RTI. She told him that she tried that many times and that she could not get an reply. He also requested her to come to his office and get back the application. He also offered that he will ask his people to cancel the Postal order and refund the amount of Rs.10.

After meeting me she went to Mylapore post office to collect the card. There too a senior official gave her his mobile number and told her that she can contact him directly over phone if she has any problems. She came back to my office at 11 Am with the card in hand. The card that was eluding her for 5 months, brought to her hand in 24 hours, by the Right to Information act, 2005.

The draft RTI application can be seen here.

Additional Fee - CIC's Important Order

I filed an RTI application with the Southern Railways in February 2008. In that application, I asked for copies of various rules related to different quotas in train tickets booking (like emergency, tatkal) and also asked for the number of tickets booked under each quota. In reply to this I got a letter from Mr.A.Cyril Raj, Asst. Public Information Officer & Dy. Chief Manager/Claims. This communication stated that the information I had asked for comes to 47 pages, and that I have to furnish 94 rupees to get that. In addition to that, I was also asked to pay 750 rupees for the 8 man hours it would take to collect the information.

I filed a first appeal against this and the appeallate authority upheld the order of the PIO saying that the cost of maintenance of MIS applications, CPU and hard disk power etc were considered when 750 rupees were asked. Against this I filed a second appeal with the Central Information Commision on 10th June 2008. Nothing much happened after this and I kept waiting. Another appeal that I filed with the CIC after this appeal was also heard, but I did not hear much about this earlier appeal.

About a month back, there was this notice on the CIC website which I came to know of. This said that a hearing was scheduled for June 8th in which the scope of section 7(3) (additional fee) was going to be heard by a bench of commissioners. So I thought that my case was put on hold till this bench decides on the issue. But to my surprise I received a notice for a hearing of my case on 19th June 2009. I called up the commission and informed them that since I will not be able to come to Delhi for this, I wanted the hearing to be held through video conferencing. To this the official told me that if a video conference has to be scheduled, then the date of hearing has to be changed which cannot be done. So I asked him to hold the hearing through audio conferencing to which he agreed and took down my number.

On 19th June 2009 at 3.30 PM the hearing was held. I joined in on my phone. But by the time they called me, it seemed that the PIO has already put forward his arguemnts. When I joined the commissioner Ms.Annapurna Dixit, asked me put forward my points in the argument. I pointed out that there was inconsistency in the what the PIO and the Appellate Authority said. While the PIO talked only about man hours, the Appellate Authority said that the cost includes maintenance of MIS applications, hard disk, CPU power etc. I said that this clearly shows that the demand of Rs.750 was arbitrary. The more important point was that under RTI there is no scope for charging man power and maintenance costs as "further fee" under RTI.

The commissioner agreed that there was no scope for charging this information under RTI, but advised me not to ask voluminous information in future. I immediately refused saying that the information I had asked was not voluminous in nature, and that I had asked only information related to only 1 train for a continuous period of 10 days. To this the PIO said that running this query will affect the online booking system. Then I pointed out that having done my Masters in Computer Applications, I knew a little bit about databases and that what the PIO claimed was wrong. I also pointed out that when I make a booking online, I run several queries before finalising my trip schedule, and that one more query wont bring the system down.

To this the PIO said that the information I asked cannot be compared to my querying while online booking since online booking contains details only about the last 5 days, and the information I had asked for was from the archived data. This clearly was a contradiction. When the query I had to run was on archived data, how can the PIO claim that this query will bring the online booking system down. This I pointed out to the Commissioner.

At this point, the commissioner said that she did not want to get into a debate about this and so I left it at that. I also requested her to state clearly in her order that there is no scope for man power and maintenance fee costs under RTI.

I was reasonably happy at the way the hearing went, except for the fact that when the PIO claimed that the information I sought was voluminous the Commissioner wanted to advise me, but when I pointed out how the claim of "Voluminous" data, was wrong, she backed out of the debate.

About a week later the decision was put up on the web (can be seen here). The order categorically stated that there was no scope for charging manpower and maintenance costs under section 7(3) of the Right to Information act, 2005. But there was a disappointment for me.

The order says that I agreed that the information I had asked for was voluminous. This is totally untrue. I dont know why the order says so. In fact I spent a considerable part of the hearing bringing out the inconsistencies of the Southern Railways claim that the information I had asked for was voluminous. I wonder how such a statement can be given in the order. I have already filed a complaint with the Commissioner and the Assistant registrar about this sentence in the order. But when I called up the Asst registrar, I was told that the Commissioner was on leave for 1 month and hence nothing can be done right now. Will have to wait for a month for that to see what can be done.

This was covered in Dinamalar, a Tamil Newspaper and Times of India. The link to the Times of India article is given below.

Authorities can't ask for money to give info, says CIC

The Dinamalar article can be seen here.

Some General Updates

My recent posts have been about specific issues, and so a the regular work I do has been missed out. I will try to cover them here. All through the last 6-8 weeks I have been trying to get the State Information Commission to look at follow-up of Show Cause Notices seriously. In reply to an RTI application I filed with the State Information Commission, I got the following Information.

Month, Year	Number of Appeals & Complaints	Number of cases disposed without hearing	Number of cases disposed after a hearing	Number of Show Cause Notices	Number of Penalties
Jan '09	2421	1019	74	35	0
Feb '09	2211	1177	249	21	0
Mar '09	2821	1373	443	35	0

The discrepancy in the last two columns is because SCNs are not followed up by the commission. I raised this issue with the registrar, and he too said that, that was a weak area. I asked him to begin with follow-up right away and as a start, he can begin with Show Cause Notices of Jan 2009. He said that finding out the cases where a SCN has been issued is difficult. I offered to him, that I can get him the list of cases of Jan 2009 where a Show Cause Notice has been issued, and that he can do a follow-up of them. This list I gave him the very next day and he asked me to give him a week for that. I gave him two weeks. Since the registrar gave me proper details I also tried to find him the details of the backlog of cases. He said that the problem was with the lack of clerical staff. On Jun 19th he told me that appeals/complaints that had come till May 2009 have been seen by the commissioners. But it was typing of these orders that were causing the delays. He also said that if only they worked on saturdays too, could they clear the backlog. I went to meet him again yesterday and he said that last saturday all the staff had come to office and worked and that this will continue this saturday also. That was some good news.

As for the follow-up of Show Cause Notices, he himself had asked the staff to draw up the list of cases from Jan in which show cause notices were issued, and he told me that he would do something about it by the first week of July.

Everytime I meet the registrar, I make it a point to raise the issue of web updates, since that is the only way that that the public can keep a tab on the quality of decisions of the Information Commission. So far decisions till Feb 2009 have been uploaded to the website. This is a huge improvement over what the scenario was, a few months back.

In the meanwhile I have also done an analysis of the January 2009 jugments of the State Information Commission. In a discussion yesterday regarding isuing Show Cause Notices to all cases where it is due, or at least, if the commissioner decides not to issue a Show Cause Notice, an explanation, as to why SCN was not issued, the Chief Commissioner said that similar orders have already been passed both in written and orally, but that the other commissioners were not heeding him. I will take this up with each of the commissioners tomorrow and the following week.

On 17th June I was invited to participate in a discussion on the functioning of the Information Commission in WIN TV. The anchor had based on the statement of the Chief Central Information Commissioner, that the government is trying to stifle the act, by not allocating enough funds. Elango from Makkal Sakthi Iyakkam with whom I worked on the protest, and another lawyer, whom I had not met before, was part of the discussion. I somehow felt, that the whole discussion was not really focussed. It seemed that the anchor was trying to sensationalise the whole thing. The lawyer, who was part of the discussion, did not really have much experience with RTI, but was there just because she was a lawyer. The anchor too kept jumping from one issue to another without discussing the details of one specific issue fully. Discussing the condition of the State Information Commission, would have been a useful topic, and that is what I thought, at the beginning of the session, would be discussed. I somehow, at the end of it all, felt that the discussion was pointless and it would have been much better, if there had been a pre show discussion with the participants on the issues to be discussed and the direction the discussion should take.

The following incident in the programme, will sum up the level of discussion. At the end of the phone call to the State Information Commission, the anchor asked the Registrar, if the Registrar knew that this specific program that has been running on WIN TV, has been espousing the cause of the Right to Information, the registrar said that he didnt. After the phone call, the anchor made a statement that went like "If the Commission does not know about this program on WIN TV, that has trying to spread the word about the Right to Information, that shows the how well the commission was functioning". I wondered how knowledge of the TV program could in anyway be an indicator of the functioning of the commission. In fact, before I was called for the program, I had no idea that such a program was on.

Digital hoardings - How the government maintains an illegal stand, unofficially

Here is a classic case of how a government does what it wants, irrespective of, what the high court tells them and what they tell the high court. This is about the digital hoardings that have become the latest(though it cannot actually be called latest, since it has been ther for a few years now) fad. Everybody wants a digital hoarding for everything. If somebody (actually a nobody) is coming to Chennai or some area of Chennai, and his chamchas want to gain favour with him, they line up the medians and the pavements with hoardings of this guy walking in a suit or talking over cell phone, with a stupid grin on his face. These highly irritating hoardings actually do the trick. They do give them good publicity.

Political parties are the major offenders. They come up with hoardings for everything. I have been so infuriated with this, that I have gone to 3 police stations so far and filed complaints against this. And everywhere I was told that these politicial hoardings are allowed for 3 days before and 2 days after the political event for which these were raised. The misuse is rampant. Nobody really bothers. They just put up hoardings even if there are no events. And even in cases where there are genuinely some events, these hoardings come up much before 3 days and will stay there till long after the 2 days after the event. So whenever I complain to the Police, I had to do it, only if there was no political event, or if the hoardings were there even after the stipulated 2 days.

But I also wondered how such orders can be given by the government, where in the hoardings can be allowed for 3 days before and 2 days after. Illegal hoardings are after all illegal hoardings. The most serious problem with these hoardings are that they pose a safety threat to road users. That being the case, how can the government say that safety can be ignored for 3 days before and 2 days after an event. That could be easily challenged in the court. So I filed an RTI with the Chennai Corporation, asking them to give me copies of the relevant orders wherein it has been specified that hoardings can be allowed before and after an event. The RTI application was sent from one place to another and finally, I received a reply from the office of the Commissioner of sub-urban police citing the GO(MS) No.62, MAWS 16-May-2007. But they told me that they did not have a copy of the GO since their office was newly formed.

When I looked up the GO on the internet (it can be seen here). This GO did not talk about the time stipulations of 3 and 2 days, but only talked about formation of committees to oversee the removal of unauthorised hoardings. Then I had the first inkling, that there probably was no formal order from the government. So I immediately filed an RTI with the MAWS (Municipal Administration and Water Supply department). But not wanting to wait for 30 days I used Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information act, which says that the government should voluntarily "publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;". For this I went for inspection on 10th June 2009. Surprisingly, they did show me the file related to this. When I asked the person there as to the present status, he said that I had asked to go through the files and so I should find the details on my own in the file.

When I went through the file, I understood the whole story. There have been no official orders that Digital Hoardings can be allowed for 3 days before and 2 days afte the event. There were only 2 press releases, which can be seen here (1 & 2). That these were made after discussions with the Chief minister Mr.M.Karunanidhi clearly shows that it was under the CM's oders that such press releases were issued. The first press release says that Political Parties and other Public institutions that erect hoardings for events should do so only 3 days before and 2 days after the event. Other that there has only been a DO letter (whose copy I dont have right now, but will get soon) which said the same thing. A report in the Hindu in this regard, can be seen here.The government was playing it safe as we will soon see.

In this regard Traffic Ramasamy filed a PIL hoardings with the high court (case no 14965/2007). In this case, the high court had asked from the Chief Secretary, the rationale behing the press releases and the DO letter. There the Cheif Secretary made a complete u-turn and said, that the press release only means that licenses for hoardings can only be given for 3-days before and 2 days after the event. He also added that the press release and DO letter does not mean that licenses are not necessary, but only that licenses should be given only for 5 days. This was clearly not what he meant when he issued those two press releases. But now, realising that, the court is asking him for the rationale behind the press releases, he did a u-turn. But, in his affidavit, he did not stop at that . He went on to say that the implementing authorities should not be bogged down with such pres releases and DO letters. What crap! The Chief Secretary and the CM hold a meeting and issue a press release. A year later when the high court hauls them up asking for explanations, they say that their press release ought to be ignored. Does he really mean that what the CM and the Chief Secretary says ought to be ignored. This is so absurd.

But what has now happened is that, the press releases were initially widely publicised. And every police station now says that the government has allowed for hoardings to be set up for 5 days. But nobody knows about the Chief Secretary's volte face. So, though today there is no official order, or even an official stand, that illegal digital hoardings can stay for 5 days, for all practical purposes that is the ground reality.

Am waiting to lay my hands on that affidavit by the Chief Secretary and the DO letter. Once that is in my hands, I will go the press about this, and then use the press articles when I go to police stations.

A small update on Perungattur awareness session

On 21st April 2007, I had organised an awareness session in a village called Perungattur in Cheyyar Taluka of Thiruvannamalai district. At that time after the session I helped 5 people there to file their RTI applications with the Tahsildar offices. One of which was for a ration card follow up, three for old age pension follow up and one house application follow-up. Yesterday I went there again to find out what had happened. Not a single person received any reply to the RTI application. But there was a goof-up from my side too. I forgot to tell them to take copies of their applications before sending. I just dont understand how I missed that. Anyway, so I filed First appeals for 4 of them yesterday. I have also told two of them (I did not meet the other two yesterday), that if after 30 days of the first appeal, they dont get any reply, we need to go to the Tahsildar office and talk to him. They said ok. Let me wait and see.

Inspection at Public (Establishment) and Public (Motor Vehicles)

The next day after the inspection at the Protocol section, I met the PIO of the Establishment department, who promptly sent me to the Joint secretary. This time, the Joint Secretary was irritated at why I was asking lots of information, but he sent me to the PIO, who again refused to show me the records and that he will send me a reply to my letter of inspection.

But the best was reserved for the ext day. On the third day (Wednesday), I went to the PIO of the Motor Vehicles department. He initially told me that the public did not have the right to inspection. To which I showed him the part of the act which said that

"Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority"

Then, he claimed, that the department was not a public authority,. Here again I showed the relevant part of the act. Then he said that the department has already put up all the infromation that is needed for the public on the web. I told him that he cannot decide what is needed for the public, but he must go by what the act says. He also asked whether I would show him my bank passbook if he asked for it. I told him that I need not because he doesnt fund me, but he has to since the public fund him. When he asked how, I told him that we are all paying taxes. When he asked what tax, I listed out that I pay Income tax, sales tax, road tax etc. He said that Income tax is paid only for the income I earn and hence it is a personal thing. His logic was astounding. When I questioned him that if it was my income, why do I need to pay tax. Is it not that I pay taxes so that a government can be run to ensure us basic services. But he went back to his point of income tax being a personal thing. After arguing this point for sometime, he came up with his greatest reply. He said that since his department did not maintain any records at all, he could not show me any records. I was shocked at this reckless reply. Here is an officer of the secretariat, who claims that his department does not have any records. I was stunned. Not knowing what to do, I asked him to give it to me in writing. Immediately he changed tack and told me that he needs to consult the law department and his seniors before giving me the information. When I pressed him again, he refused to show me anything and asked me to wait for the letter from him.