Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

February 2015

Part C Information on & Around

By Narayan Varma Chartered Accountant
Reading Time 4 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

CDR Cell:
Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell has refused to the RTI query about its operations saying RTI , transparency law, does not apply to it.

CDR is a self-empowered body, which provides broad guidelines and policies to be followed by itself and the administrative, operating and other costs of CDR cell is shared by all financial institutions and Banks.

Based on this, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information

Commissioner holds the view that RTI Act applies to them. However, CDR Cell holds the view that it is neither owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. Hence, CDR Cell is not a public authority as defined u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act.

In the first Appeal before FAA, he also ruled that “CDR Cell is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and hence, we are unable to entertain application under the RTI Act”.

Matter would now go to the Central Information Commission.

Information on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose:

In Jan. 15 issue in Part C this item was carried. Now Mr. S. C. Agrawal, the RTI appellant has reacted on it and has said:

“According to section 8(2), Public interest definitely overweighs the protected as several committees have been formed by the Union government to probe the mystery behind Netaji’s death. The Central Public Information Officer did not even name the country with which relations are likely to be prejudicially affected”.

BCAS RTI Clinic:
Reproducing one letter received by me from one visitor, at BCAS RTI Clinic Aurobindo Das:

I approached your office in January 2014 to seek guidance regarding inflated water bills charged by P/S Ward, Goregaon West, BMC Water Department, for nearly two years to our housing society. The Asst. Engineer, Water Works refused to give us the information about the basis on which and the methods followed by the billing department. Adv. Anilkumar K. Asher has guided me since then till the hearing stage of my 2nd appeal. He accompanied me to the office of the MSIC on 24.09.2014. And I am pleased to inform you that the Order of the appeal was in my favour. Enclosed please find the copy of the Order.

Sir, I am personally grateful and thankful to all of you for the help & guidance that have been accorded to me”.

 Note: Copy of the Order received in Marathi is not reproduced here. Many visitors get such positive results by acting on our advice but do not write on their success.

RTI & CPA :
There were conflicting judgements of the National Commission as to whether an applicant seeking information under the RTI Act would be a consumer or not. Certain two member benches had held that an RTI applicant who pays fees for the information would be a consumer, while other benches had held a consumer complaint would not be maintainable since the RTI Act provides its own channel of appeals.

Hence, a three-member bench was constituted to settle the law. The national commission addressed to two issuesfirstly, whether a person seeking information under RTI Act can be said to be a consumer and if it is held that he is a consumer, can a complaint to file under the Consumer Protection Act, or would this remedy be barred by the RTI Act provisions.

The national commission observed that it is a settled legal proposition that when a right is created by a statue which also provides for an adequate and satisfactory remedy to enforce that right, a person must avail of the mechanism available under the relevant act. The Public information officer is actually discharging a statutory function and not rendering any services. Besides, Section 23 of the RTI Act bars the jurisdiction of courts.

By its order of January 8, the national commission concluded that it is not permissible to have two parallel machineries for enforcement of the same rights created by the RTI Act, which a special statute. If a consumer complaint is permitted, it would defeat the purpose of providing a special mechanism under the RTI Act.

An RTI applicant is not entitled to file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service. He must follow the appeal procedure prescribed under the RTI Act.

You May Also Like