RTI Stories

The following stories related to RTI in Tamil Nadu have been posted by the users

Please read the success stories posted by our users:

Submitted by Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar
TNRDC writ appeal dismissed
Shyam Ranganathan
Asked to furnish details of its IT corridor road project
TNDRC had claimed RTI Act not applicable to it
State Information Commission asked it to provide details

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Road Development Company (TNRDC) and asked the company to furnish details of a project involving the company. The TNRDC has filed a writ appeal against the ruling and orders are awaited.

An RTI petition filed by an individual on October 21 last year had asked the TNRDC to furnish the following details on the IT corridor road project: the contractors for constructing the IT corridor, copies of contract agreements with the contractors and copies of documents published by the TNRDC or other consultants about the corridor.

When this information was not provided on the ground that the Act was not applicable to TNRDC, the petitioner appealed to the State Information Commission (SIC) which held, in a ruling on May 21, that the TNRDC was a “public authority” for the purposes of the RTI Act, and had to provide the requested information.

The TNRDC had filed a writ petition against the SIC ruling, and counsel for the petitioner held that it was not “substantially financed” by the government as a significant portion of the project was being funded by “loans raised at competitive rates and tenor.” Of the Rs. 290 crore budgeted for the IT corridor project, the State Government had provided only Rs. 21.5 crore which had to be returned to the government free of interest, counsel held.

Counsel also said that the State Government did not own 51 per cent or more of the shares in the company, as contemplated under the Indian Companies Act, and was “not functionally and administratively dominated by the government,” and hence could not be classified a “public authority.”

The respondents held that the petitioner was controlled by the government as the entire project was sanctioned by the government and the TNRDC was directed to take up the project by a government order. They also said the RTI Act was larger in scope than the Companies Act. The construction and maintenance of roads was an activity of the State and would have to be transparent, they said.

The Act, which mandates that all “public authorities” should disclose their records related to public affairs, has defined a public authority to include all government bodies and any “i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government.”

The High Court ruling said that “substantially” was not clearly defined in the Act, and interpreted the word “substantial” as “practicable” and “real or actual as opposed to trivial.” It held that the petitioner was a public authority in view of the “financial assistance and also exclusive privilege conferred … in exclusion of others to lay the road which is one of the governmental functions of public importance…”

Stating this, Justice A. Kulasekaran dismissed the petition as devoid of merits and directed the TNRDC to furnish the required information within two weeks. The TNRDC has preferred an appeal against this ruling and orders are awaited on the writ appeal.

Submitted by Dorai Raj S

I filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, in February, 2006. There was no progress because the relevant records called for from the lower court (District Forum) situated just one floor above in the same building, had not been sent for months. I am 75 years of age with frail health and limited mobility. I have to travel a grueling 500 km spending approximately Rs.750 - 800 each time I have to attend the hearing. Desperate and frustrated over the inordinate delay caused by the third floor court in sending the record to the second floor court, I invoked the RTI Act to find out the reasons for the delay. I submitted an application to the PIOs of both the courts. Now I am informed that the record has been sent by the lower court to the appellate court. I am reproducing below my applications for the benefit of your visitors. S. Dorai Raj Phone : (04543) 258772 30, Pettai Agraharam SHOLAVANDAN– 625214 February 23, 2007Mr. T.P.C. Balakrishnan Registrar & Public Information Officer State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2nd Floor,212, R. K. Mutt Road, CHENNAI – 600 004Registered Post A/DSir,Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.I am a senior citizen of 76 years of age and a permanent resident of Sholavandan, approximately 500 km from Chennai. I am a person with low vision and limited mobility. I have filed an appeal (on 2 February 2006) before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. I am attending to the case in person traveling a grueling 500 km. one way for each date of hearing. Each visit to Chennai costs me Rs.750 to 800 besides the physical and mental strain I have to undergo. There is no progress in the appeal because the relevant record has not been received from the District Forum, Chennai (South) which is situated just one floor above in the same building. Non-receipt of the record is causing me great hardship – mental, physical and financial. Please provide the following information with respect to the same. I enclose a demand draft No. dated 24 February, 2007, on Canara Bank for Rs.10 towards the prescribed application fee in your favour, payable at Chennai. Please arrange to send me your official receipt for the payment.INFORMATION REQUESTED1.What is the procedure adopted by the Registrar / State Commission in calling for the relevant records of the case files from the Registrars / District Forums in cases where appeals have been filed against the orders of such District Forums?2.Is there any difference in the procedure if relevant records are to be called for from the two District Forums in Chennai (South and North) which are situated in the same building? If so, the procedure may be stated.3.Does the Registrar / State Commission while calling for the records, normally fix any time limit within which the Registrars / District Forums are required to send the records? If so, what is the time limit so fixed? 4.Is the time limit the same for the two Chennai District Forums also? If it is different, please specify.5.How are the relevant records usually sent by the two Chennai District Forums to the State Commission, i.e., the mode of despatch?6.Please state the name and designation of the official concerned in the office of the Registrar in the State Commission who is entrusted with the responsibility of calling for the records from the Registrars / District Forums.7.Likewise, please state the name and designation of the official concerned in the office of the Registrar in the District Forum, Chennai (South), who is entrusted with the responsibility of sending the records to the State Commission. 8.What action is taken by the Registrar / State Commission in the event the concerned officials in the two Chennai District Forums fail to send the records within the time, if any, fixed, or within a reasonable time? 9.When exactly was the record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in F.A. No. 372 of 2006 called for from the Registrar / District Forum, Chennai (South)? 10. Was any time limit fixed for the Registrar / District Forum, Chennai (South) to send the relevant record and, if so, what was it? Please let me have a certified true Photostat copy of the request / letter sent by the Registrar / State Commission to the Registrar / District Forum, Chennai (South) in this connection.11.This said record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South) has not been received until 22 February 2007, in the State Commission. What are the reasons for the long delay caused in getting the record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001 in F.A. No. 372 of 2006, from the Registrar/District Forum (South)? 12.When the record is likely to be received from the District Forum, Chennai (South) situated just one floor above the State Commission in the same building?13. Who are the officials accountable for the delay so caused? Will any action be taken against the officials concerned who neglected to do their assigned duties thus causing avoidable hardship and harassment to a senior citizen?14.How many appeals are pending as on 31 December 2006 for want only of the relevant records from the two District Forums, Chennai (South and North)? Periodwise number may be given of cases pending for 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and more than 12 months, relating to the Chennai District Forums separately. 15.How many appeals / consumer complaints have been filed by or against senior citizens before the State Commission since the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005? How many of them have been heard and disposed of on priority basis as enjoined by Regulation No. 26 (6)? 16.What is the procedure to be adopted by a senior citizen to ensure that the case filed by or against him is heard and disposed of on priority basis?You are requested to furnish the information an early date. If, by any chance, you are not concerned or do not deal directly with this application or part thereof, kindly forward it to the right PIO under Section 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with intimation to me.Thank you for your co-operation and assistance. Yours faithfully,Encl: Bank Draft S. DORAI RAJ). S. Dorai Raj Phone: (04543) 258772 30, Pettai Agraharam SHOLAVANDAN–625 214February 24, 2007The President & Public Information OfficerDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumChennai (South), 3rd Floor,212, R. K. Mutt Road,CHENNAI – 600 004.Registered Post A/DDear Sir,Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.I am a senior citizen of 76 years of age and a permanent resident of Sholavandan, approximately 500 km from Chennai. I am a person with low vision and limited mobility. I have filed an appeal (on 2 February 2006) before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. I am attending to the case in person traveling a grueling 500 km. one way for each date of hearing. Each visit to Chennai costs me Rs.750 to 800 besides the physical and mental strain I have to undergo. There is no progress in the appeal because the relevant record has not been sent by the District Forum, Chennai (South) to the State Commission, which is situated just one floor below in the same building. The delay in sending the record to the State Commission is causing me great hardship – mental, physical and financial. Please arrange to provide the following information with respect to the same. I enclose a demand draft No. dated 24 February 2007, on Canara Bank for Rs.10 towards the prescribed application fee in favour of the Public Information Officer, DCDRF, Chennai (South), payable at Chennai. Please arrange to send me your official receipt for the payment.INFORMATION REQUESTED1.Has any request / letter been received by the Registrar / District Forum from the Registrar / State Commission calling for the record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in F.A. No. 372 of 2006 and, if so, when was it received for the first time?2.Please let me have a certified true Photostat copy of the request / letter referred to in paragraph (1) above.3.Was any time limit fixed in the said request by the Registrar / State Commission for sending the record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001? If so, please state the time limit so fixed.4.Please state the name/s and designation/s of the official/s in the office of the Registrar / District Forum who is / are entrusted with the responsibility of sending the records called for by the Registrar / State Commission5.How are such requests received by the Registrar / District Forum from the Registrar / State Commission and how are the records sent by the Registrar / District Forum to the Registrar / State Commission? Please state the mode of receipt and despatch.6.What are the reasons for the delay in sending the record of O.P. No. 501 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum to the State Commission?7.Who are the officials accountable for the delay so caused? Will any action be taken against the officials concerned who neglected to do their assigned duties thus causing avoidable hardship and harassment to a senior citizen? 8.How many such requests have been received from the Registrar / State Commission which are pending and yet to be complied with? Periodwise number may be given of such requests pending for 6 months, 6 months to 12 months and more than 12 months.9.When the record of O.P. No. 510 of 2001 is likely to be sent to the Registrar / State Commission? Thank you for your co-operation and assistance. Yours faithfully,Encl: Bank Draft (S. DORAI RAJ)