Sakshi Trust "RTI"

In consultation with Sakshi Trust Ms Renu Desai filled an application to SRFDCL and successfully got a reply. Here is her success story…
 
SRFDCL ordered to release riverfront report
RAHUL MANGAONKAR

Since inception, questions have been raised about the feasibility of the Sabarmati Riverfront Project. Though, various studies were commissioned, information in these reports was selectively shared by the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Ltd (SRFDCL). When asked for under Right to Information (RTI), SRFDCL raised the bogey of 'third party', that is the consultant's commercial interest and intellectual property being compromised, as a rather lame excuse to deny information.

Renu Desai, a PhD scholar from Ahmedabad, studying urban development, wanted from SRFDCL, the memorandum prepared by Vivro Financial Services (VFS) in 2006. This, according to her, contained the recommendations on how the project is to be financed. SRFDCL refused parting with the information stating that it contained the interest of the third party, given in strictest of commercial confidence, being the intellectual property of the third party, that is VFS.

Desai contested this before the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) saying, "Since VFS received payment from SRFDCL for preparing the memorandum, it rightfully belongs to SRFDCL. There is no private information concerning VFS. Disclosure of information cannot harm the competitive position of any third party, as there are no competitive parties involved at this point of time since the bidding has already been completed and the work awarded to VFS. Public money has been spent for its preparation, therefore the memorandum, now belongs to the public and a citizen is entitled to a copy."

SRFDCL submitted that as it was prepared by VFS, a third party, its opinion was sought about whether the information could be disclosed. VFS had opined that they had given the memorandum on specific requirement of SRFDCL, disclosure of which might harm their competitive position. GIC then asked how SRFDCL could deny the information when VFS was paid for its preparation.

Ordering disclosure, GIC observed, "VFS cannot be treated as a third party. VFS was awarded work on conclusion of the bidding process and they were paid from the public funds of SRFDCL. Once the memorandum has been submitted, and the agency has been paid for it, VFS cannot have claim on commercial confidence to deny its disclosure. It has become a public document and a citizen has a right to seek its disclosure. It was unnecessary for SRFDCL to have sought their opinion."