Lawfully yours: By Retd Justice K Chandru

Court will not interfere with plan prepared by Metro Rail experts

A case seeking reinstatement of Thapalpetti Metro station, illogically deleted from the initial DPR of Chennai Metro (Phase 2 Corridor 3) project, has been kept pending by the High Court even as the respondent is believed to have resorted to bench fixing before the court closed for the vacation. Meanwhile, a new PIL was filed by a different petitioner of the affected area seeking the reinstation of the Thapalpetti Metro Station, a vital transit junction in Madhavaram. The new PIL had two sittings with the respondent seeking time to counter until June 15. On the other hand, the CMRL, in disregard of the honourable court, continued with work in unprecedented haste, probably to complete it before June 15 and inform the court nothing can be done now. Surprisingly, the DPR, which had been showing Thapalpetti until a day ago, was updated by the CMRL on the public domain sans the contested station raising various questions. Can the court status quo until the proceedings are over?

— Abraham Mathew, Madhavaram

You presume everything to be in your favour. Thapalpetti stop might have found a place in the original plan. Subsequently, it could have been dropped for certain reasons. The court in the pending PIL cases may be told of those reasons and the court may accept them as valid. No one has any vested interest in a station being put up or denied. Five years ago, we would not have dreamt of a metro for Madhavaram. Ultimately, no court will interfere with a plan prepared by experts and direct the Metro rail to provide a station. It is not the job of the court to run a Metro and provide stops as per people’s wishes.

Refusal to accept RTI application can invite disciplinary action, penalty

Recently, a friend of mine sought information from the traffic police under the Right to Information Act of 2005. He promptly received a reply stating that under the Act, information should not be sought by raising questions. Even if it is sought in the form of questions, how does it matter to the department? As long as the information sought in the form of questions is relevant and is pertaining to the subject, what is the problem in providing the information? Further, certain information needs to be sought in the form of questions only. Your observation, please.

— VS Jayaraman, Chennai

he Right to Information Act did not prescribe a specific format of application for seeking information. The natural way of asking for information is to seek them by raising questions. The police department cannot deny information on the ground that it was sought by putting questions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) who denied information can be fined up to Rs 20,000 for returning your application. Besides the TN Information Commission can direct the DGP to take disciplinary action against the PIO concerned. You can file a second appeal before the Commission after exhausting your right of a first appeal.