Should BIAL be subject to RTI?

New airport not open to public scrutiny: official
http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/12/stories/2008021260900300.htm

Vast expanses of farmland have been acquired by the State Government to develop the greenfield airport. The State promoters have 26 per cent stake in Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL), the company developing the airport. Yet, the ordinary citizen cannot ask for information about the airport from its promoters apparently because the BIAL is “a company in the private sector,” is not a “public authority” and “provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 and Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements 1999” are not applicable.

This is the reply that Benson Isaac, an individual who asked for information under the RTI was told by A.R. Rajaram, head, legal, and company secretary of the BIAL. Under the RTI Act, any public authority has to suo motu declare basic information about itself.

In a letter to the BIAL, Mr. Isaac argued that a public authority, as defined by the RTI Act, is any body or institution that is controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. The 26 per cent stake by State promoters in the BIAL, Mr. Isaac contends, is enough to consider the BIAL a public authority and all rules and regulations of the RTI act are applicable to it.

Airport site
“The Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation has provided the airport site to BIAL free from all encumbrances under the Land Lease Agreement. Also a State support agreement of Rs. 350 crore would be made available by the Government of Karnataka to BIAL for the purpose of this project,” Mr. Isaac said, quoting from the BIAL website.

Mr. Isaac also pointed out that in a similar case against the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), filed by Lt. Col (Retd) Anil Hebble, the Central Information Commission had ruled that the DIAL with 26 per cent stake of the State promoters, was a public authority. The same holds good for the BIAL too, he said.

Acknowledging his letter, the BIAL, in its reply on April 20, 2007, maintained that it was not a public authority and “the question of furnishing any declaration/information suo motu or otherwise does not arise and we sincerely request you to treat the matter as closed.”

Mr. Isaac has approached the State Information Commission. The BIAL, in its statement of objections before the commission, has disputed Mr. Isaac’s claim. It said that the 26 per cent stake of State promoters does not amount to “substantially financing BIAL;” that the relationship between the parties is that of “a creditor and debtor;” the land has been leased out to BIAL and the company does not own these lands and that the BIAL is required to pay concession fee and is also liable to pay taxes.

On the question of similarities with the case against DIAL, the Bangalore airport promoters say that “the facts to be looked into and appreciated, is totally different from the case of Lt. Col (Retd) Anil Hebble.”

the question is what does this privatization of a public service mean? the issue is not about regulating how much profit bial is going to make but of regulating the level of service. of making sure that bangalore gets a fair deal in the bargain. some years down the line, this consortium will go and somebody else will take over, but bangalore will be stuck with the infrastructure they build. who is looking out that we get what is needed? thanks to bial's consistently underestimated traffic projections, will get an airport just big enough. just enough capacity, not an inch more not an inch less. even a slight increase in capacity will require fresh construction. yes, they have conveyor belts but not the most user friendly ones. yes, they have a ground traffic plan, but not the most user friendly one. with bial, whether it is capacity or functionality, why do we get a feeling that we are going to get just what is needed? just like bmtc makes money, bial will also make money. but what about service? without the public watchdog to enforce service levels it will become yet another govt office. the most serious lapse on bial's part is the failure to come up with a scalable, desi-proof ground traffic solution. hopefully the next phase terminals will have a better solution. but i think the problems of this terminals will spill over to other terminals because the access roads to all the terminals in the master plan are connected, are in the interior, and the space in the piazza area is all accounted for. there might not be a good solution for the entire airport. we will see. working on some illustrations. will take time.