'PPPs are public authorities as they deliver public utilities'

Tirupur water project SPV is a public authority under RTI, rules Madras HC

kapil

Kapil Bajaj | April 20, 2010


Many PPPs are delivering essential public utilities like water
Many PPPs are delivering essential public utilities like water

In a significant verdict that is likely to affect how public-private partnerships (PPPs) will be treated in law, Madras high court has ruled that New Tiruppur Area Development Corporation (NTADCL), a water supply PPP, must be considered a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.
The verdict upholds an order of Tamil Nadu information commission made on an RTI application filed by Gaurav Dwivedi of Manthan, a Madhya Pradesh-based NGO, and is likely to give a fillip to efforts to get the PPPs that are mushrooming across the country to share with the public information about their formation, operations, and finances.

In holding NTADCL, which supplies water in the industrial town of Tirupur, as a public authority, the court not only favoured a “liberal interpretation” of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, but stated that the company was essentially carrying out an activity that constitutionally belongs to the state.

“The activity that is undertaken by the petitioner company is essentially a power vested on the municipal authority under article 243(W) read with items 5 and 6 of the XII schedule to the Constitution,” the order said.

Incorporated in 1995, NTADCL was jointly promoted by Tamil Nadu government and private company IL&FS as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to implement the Tirupur area development programme.

While IL&FS holds 27.17 per cent shareholding in NTADCL, the state government holds 17.04 per cent, according to the facts presented in the court. AIDQUA Holdings, a Mauritius-based company, holds 27.89 per cent and public-sector insurance companies hold 10.85 per cent.

NTADCL, which was the petitioner in the case, argued that since it was not “substantially financed” by the government, it could not be deemed a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

The court took the view that since the law did not specify the proportion of funding required for an entity to become “substantially financed”, it “will have to apply proper test in each case and apply the provisions of the RTI Act to those authorities.”

The order also relied on the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (duties, powers and conditions of service) Act, 1971, which allows CAG to audit the accounts of any body or authority that has received no less than Rs one crore in public funding, to contend that NTADCL was “substantially financed” by the government.

“The office of the CAG can audit the accounts of the petitioner company after getting prior approval from the state government…. It cannot be contended that the petitioner company will not come within the term ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d).”
The court observed that the PPPs, which generally work on build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) principle and often perform some of the activities of the local governments, “must explain to the people about their activities”.

“Every citizen has a right to know the working of such bodies, lest they may be fleeced by such companies,” the order passed by justice K. Chandru said.

“This order is important because the principles outlined in the order strengthen the arguments for all public-private-partnership, or privatized, projects, especially in water, health, and education, to come under the ambit of RTI,” Dwivedi of Manthan, which tracks the privatization projects in the water sector across the country, told Governance Now.
Dwivedi, however, expect NTADCL to stick to its guns and appeal the order to a division bench of the Madras high court.

It’s notable that PPPs, which have been coming up in significant numbers across the country in areas of roads, water supply, electricity supply, etc., are loath to share information with the public about their formation, operations, and finances.
Dwivedi had requested some information from NTADCL under the RTI Act, which the latter had refused stating that they were not a ‘public authority’.

Tamil Nadu information commission upheld Dwivedi’s appeal. NTADCL had challenged the order of the information commission in the Madras high court. The main issue was whether it was a public authority or not and would fall under the ambit of RTI. Manthan's case was argued by advocate P.V. Ravi Chandran.

Tamil Nadu government had privatised water supply to Tirupur industrial estate, Tirupur municipality and a number of neighbouring villages.
The project is one of India’s largest privatised water supply projects operated by NTADCL under concession with the state government and Tirupur municipality.
 

Comments

 

Other News

From Shah Bano to Shayara Bano: How Rajiv’s blunder undid secularism

History could have repeated itself as a farce, but in the triple talaq case today, there has been no replay. A historic blunder has been undone, though it has taken three decades. The supreme court has once again taken a stance in favour of individual freedom and against fundamentalism &nda

Train passengers die as rail safety panel recommendations gather dust

 The derailment of Puri-Haridwar Kalinga Utkal express at Khatauli has once again raised serious questions on the railways’ safety claims. At least 21 people were killed and many were injured. The derailments over a period of a few months are giving sleepless nights to the top railway.

Political parties support triple talaq verdict

The BJP as well as the Congress welcomed the supreme court judgment that bars instant triple talaq for a period of six months and also seeks a legislation on it.   BJP chief Amit Shah said that he welcomes this on behalf of the party and added “it’s not about anyo

5 judges, 5 faiths, 1 verdict

Five judges from five different faiths deliberated upon and decided that instant triple talaq is to be struck down for a period of six months and the government should bring a legislation over it.   The supreme court bench was headed by chief justice of India J S Khehar, who

REC, PFC didn’t conduct appropriate due diligence: CAG

Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC) and Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) did not conduct appropriate due diligence during credit appraisal in power generation projects and in the process assumed higher risks on the loan accounts, noted the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in a rep

Triple talaq verdict historic, says Modi

Prime minister Narendra Modi described as “historic” the supreme court judgment that struck down triple talaq for a period of six months.   “Judgment of the Hon`ble SC on Triple Talaq is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure



Video

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter