<div>In a bizarre interpretation of law, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has denied information about the controversial steel flyover, saying it is “private” and “not in the public interest”.<br /><br />A Right to Information (RTI) Act activist Saidatta had sought details over the tender notification for the proposed Basaveshwara Circle-Hebbal steel bridge, the firms that took part in the tender process and the cost quoted by them. <br /><br />In its three-page reply on October 13, the BDA stated that the information sought did not meet the definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act.<br /><br />The civic agency stated that it cannot provide information as “the documents sought will have to be created and the details come under the terms and conditions between the BDA and private companies”.<br /><br />The reply also stated that the information sought was “personal” and its disclosure had no relationship to any “public activity or public interest”.<br /><br />Quoting Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, the BDA’s letter states that the information sought was about a “third person” and that it may have to create certain documents to provide information sought by the applicant. <br /><br />The agency’s information officer has cited the Central Information Commission’s order stating, “As per Section 2 (j) of the Act, no public authority can create any document.” Citing an order by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, BDA said information about any project in the initial stages may not be revealed. The steel flyover project is still in its initial stages, it stated.<br /><br />“Besides, the information sought is bulky in nature and its disclosure would involve disproportionately large diversion of resources. This also means the section concerned will have to spend too much of time to elicit information,” the letter stated.<br /></div>
<div>In a bizarre interpretation of law, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has denied information about the controversial steel flyover, saying it is “private” and “not in the public interest”.<br /><br />A Right to Information (RTI) Act activist Saidatta had sought details over the tender notification for the proposed Basaveshwara Circle-Hebbal steel bridge, the firms that took part in the tender process and the cost quoted by them. <br /><br />In its three-page reply on October 13, the BDA stated that the information sought did not meet the definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act.<br /><br />The civic agency stated that it cannot provide information as “the documents sought will have to be created and the details come under the terms and conditions between the BDA and private companies”.<br /><br />The reply also stated that the information sought was “personal” and its disclosure had no relationship to any “public activity or public interest”.<br /><br />Quoting Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, the BDA’s letter states that the information sought was about a “third person” and that it may have to create certain documents to provide information sought by the applicant. <br /><br />The agency’s information officer has cited the Central Information Commission’s order stating, “As per Section 2 (j) of the Act, no public authority can create any document.” Citing an order by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, BDA said information about any project in the initial stages may not be revealed. The steel flyover project is still in its initial stages, it stated.<br /><br />“Besides, the information sought is bulky in nature and its disclosure would involve disproportionately large diversion of resources. This also means the section concerned will have to spend too much of time to elicit information,” the letter stated.<br /></div>