State Information Commission (SIC) on Thursday ruled that Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra) led Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd or MMOPL is "a public authority and is amenable to RTI Act" – a stand that dna has been taking since May last year and had even ran a campaign.

SIC took into consideration various factors including funding by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), viability gap funding, contract termination, cost of land being utilised for the project, shifting of underground and overhead utilities, past judgements, etc before passing the order.

dna had filed three RTI applications with the development authority which went unanswered, despite repeated reminders, as MMOPL didn't share the information with its consortium partner, MMRDA. Later the SIC disposed of the appeal on the grounds that MMRDA is not responsible to furnish information if the same is unavailable with the public authority.

Later, ex-Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi filed an RTI application for the same set of information with MMOPL, who directed him to approach MMRDA. Shailesh then lodged a complaint with the SIC, who after hearing the arguments passed the order.

MMOPL spokesperson said, "We have not received any such order from the State Information Commission."

Were provisions of Concession Agreement considered?Several provisions were looked into, including onus being on MMRDA to provide necessary space or land free from all encumbrances on a nominal lease of Re1 per sq.m per annum as well as permission from various authorities. Three members on MMOPL board of directors are government representatives to exercise control and supervision.

How much has MMRDA contributed to Mumbai Metro?Stating that MMRDA's financial stake is "substantial", the order reasoned that as per the ready reckoner rate, the value of car depot land (9.53 hectares) at today's rate is Rs65,800/- per sq.mtr, which comes to about Rs627.50 crore. If Viability Gap Funding of Rs650 crore and 26% equity of Rs133 crore are included, MMRDA's direct financial assistance is Rs1,410.50 crore, "besides support in various other ways which also has huge financial implications such as shifting of underground, surface and overhead utilities, etc".

What kind of control does MMRDA has over MMOPL?Concession Agreement states that MMRDA can suspend the right of RInfra to operate the Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar metro. It also has the right to utilise the proceeds of fares and other revenues for meeting the costs incurred by MMRDA for suspension. "MMOPL thus is clearly under obligation to fulfill various conditions while operating Metro, failure of which would even enable MMRDA to suspend or terminate the contract," reads the order.

Do previous court judgments corroborate?Four other judgments substantiated on the implications of substantially financed as well as control of a public authority over the activity of a private body. Another judgment by High Court of Punjab and Haryana too was looked into, which states that institutions performing public functions and receiving substantial grant-in-aid cannot be argued of not being a public authority. In the case of Mumbai Metro, the Viability Gap Funding is a grant to the project to make it feasible.

Would the project be possible without government support?"The very fact that without the financial support of the government, the metro project was not viable at all, and has been designed on the basis of Viability Gap Funding support of the government, clearly proves the above point. In addition, the fare structure of metro is decided by a committee set up by the government," reads the order.

Shailesh Gandhi's comment on the order.Citizens can now get information about the costs of Mumbai Metro and the proposed fare increases. This decision becomes very important since it effectively establishes that most Public Private Partnerships are Public Authorities as defined in the RTI Act and provide information held by them to Indians. Corporates who have such substantial funding from the government should accept their responsibility to citizens and accept that they are covered by RTI. Merely because there is no penalty, they should not deny citizens their fundamental right, when so much money is given by government on behalf of citizens.