Why Metro should be under RTI | ||
Going by the amount of control MMOPL enjoys, activists feel it should be under the purview of the Info Act | ||
Too much power, zero accountability | ||
 Binoo Nair @NairBinoo | ||
While chances of the RInfra-led Mumbai Metro One Private Limited (MMOPL), the Metro operator, being included in the purview of the RTI Act look slim as of now, activists and commuters believe it is the only way forward. The reason? The sweeping powers vested in the MMOPL, which is the country's first and biggest private metro railway administrator, due to which activists feel it should be open to inquiries from time to time. Here are a few examples: MMOPL has the power to control its assets, including selling or any commercial exploitation. In pursuit of safety, it can enter adjacent lands to take correctional measures. It also has the power to remove people from its premises, or disallow people on its trains. Frequent commuter Manish Chaturvedi, asked why the MMOPL was treated differently. "Look at the kind of powers it has been given. They are equivalent to the railway zones. So if the railway zones are under RTI, why not MMOPL?" he asked. The other reason, government officials point out, is bad blood between MMOPL and MMRDA. "It started during the construction phase and came to a head during fare fixation. Not surprisingly, the issue landed in court," said an official. Privately, MMOPL officials agree that the relationship is severely strained. For a commuter, the cold war between MMOPL and MMRDA will mean that the former could withhold data from the latter, and as a result, the MMRDA could plead helplessness in the face of RTIs. Officials also said that for those who want a true picture of how the metro is doing in terms of ridership, punctuality, profits, expenditure, commercial development etc., the lack of RTI powers would mean a long haul to know the truth. |
 |
 |
Published Date: Nov 17, 2014
Copyright restricted. For reprint rights click here
Bank told to pay `35,000 to consumer | ||
| Pranali Lotlikar@plotlikar | ||
The commission has asked the bank to pay Rs25,000 to the complainant along with nine per cent interest on the amount from April 22, 1993 onwards. The commission also asked the complainant to pay an additional Rs10,000 towards the complainant's litigation cost. As per the commission's order copy, Karuna Khatri, a resident of Lamington Road, had an account with the Bombay Central branch of BoI. Khatri in her complaint said that in May 1993, she realised that an amount of Rs25,000 was withdrawn from her account by forging a cheque. Thus she informed the bank authorities to close her account and asked them to open with a new account. The complainant then asked the bank to repay the deducted amount of Rs25,000 in her new account, since it was the bank authorities who were in fault for clearing a check without verifying her signature. But the bank authorities refused to repay her the amount. Khatri, 1994, then approached the district consumer forum. The Bank in its reply had then claimed that they were not deficient in providing services as the cheque was cleared only after verifying the signature on the cheque. Khatri thus approached the state consumer commission and contested the district forum's order which rejected her claim. The commission had asked a report from the handwriting experts and the specimen signature on the cheque was proved to be a forged one. |
Published Date: Nov 17, 2014
What is SEBI???????
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment