We all know that it’s wrong to overcharge anything beyond the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), but how many of us actually take up cudgels against anyone overcharging, refuse to pay up whether it’s a rupee or two and instead file a complaint against the shopkeeper? Not too many, which is why they get away with overcharging more often than not. But then, among the handful which takes umbrage at the overcharging are a few who’ve used the Right to Information to make that change and make it matter.   Pune-based Sanjay Shirodkar filed an RTI application seeking an explanation from the Mumbai International Airport Limited for the high price of bottled water at airports. MIAL went on to refuse the information saying it was a private company, not a public authority and was hence not liable to discuss what it did. Bringing the first private concern under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI), a concurrent Central Information Commission ruling on the case declared that MIAL, owing to its benefiting from public concessions such as the waiver of a substantial stamp duty and functions on land leased cheaply from the Airports Authority, should be accountable under the RTI.  Similarly, the issue of domestic violence is suggested by most perpetrators even the police to be a ‘private’ matter and not public violence.  However, it has been argued that the range of corporates who utilise public resources – concessional land, tax benefits, waivers — in the name of public good — development and service — rather than in the name of private profit and institutionalised greed, are accountable for both. In one case which should inspire protestors, a victim of overcharging, not just refused to accept such exploitation and went to court, he demanded stern action against the seller…and got it. The order he received would surely make retailers think twice before overcharging consumers. The district consumer disputes redressal forum in Bharuch, Gujarat, not only asked the seller to refund the excess amount of Rs 22 charged but also pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to the consumer and Rs 1,000 as costs.  In addition, the seller was asked to pay Rs 1,50,000 to the consumer welfare fund. This was upheld by the Gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission and also the national consumer disputes redressal commission. IshhwarLalJinabhai Desai had reportedly bought, on May 14, 2003, four bottles of Mirinda from Hotel NyayMandir located on National Highway Number 8. Despite the MRP on the bottle being Rs 12.50 according to which he should have been charged Rs 50 for the four bottles, he was asked to pay Rs 72.  So in his complaint filed before the district forum, he asked for a refund of the excess amount charged, besides compensation. In addition, he wanted the forum to direct the hotel to pay to a consumer association, the excess amount charged on soft drinks by the hotel in the previous three years.  Opposing this, the hotelier argued before the national commission that first and foremost, the additional amount was the service charge towards the facilities provided by the hotel.  Second, the hotel had put up a notice outside, specifying the cost of the soft drink and the service charge. So the complainant was aware of the price and had willingly bought it. The national commission said, for starters, there was no mention of any service charge in the receipt given to the consumer.  Also, in its appeal before the state commission, the hotelier had not said anything about the notice board. So the commission cannot examine any new grounds at the revision petition stage (Hotel NyayMandirvsIshwarLalJinabhai Desai, revision petition number 550 of 2006, decided on December 14, 2010). Restaurants and hotels quite delightfully choose to quote the March, 2006 case of the Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India vs Union of India in which the Delhi High Court held that ‘charging prices for mineral water in excess of the MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotelier or restaurateur to its customers.’ In the context of overcharging, it may be imperative to note that more than 500 Indian drug companies will have to collectively pay over Rs 4,000 crore in dues after a High Court recently shot down their petition challenging penalty notices sent by drug authorities for overcharging.  Special counsel for the government, GR Sharma had said companies will have to collectively pay Rs 4,000 crore - 5,000 crore, which includes an initial principal amount and interest. The department of pharmaceuticals sent notices to several drug companies in 1996 for selling bulk drugs at prices higher than those fixed by the government.  At that time, prices were governed by the Drug Price Control Order of 1979, which was repealed later. Judges PB Majmudar and RM Savant of the Bombay High Court, December last, dismissed the industry lobby body’s petition challenging the penalty notices. Concurrently, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), on its part, has taken some measures to ensure passengers aren’t overcharged for food and that, in the event of it happening, registering a complaint isn’t too hard. They try to serve standard food products and proprietary articles such as packaged drinking water, biscuits and cold drinks etc., which have a printed MRP on them. Retailers are permitted to sell below the MRP but it’s an offence to charge anything above the MRP. What makes matters worse is that despite the law being clear on the issue, hotels and restaurants across the city with utter disregard, charge just what they feel like.  Look at the city’s cinema halls which continue to charge just what they feel like on bottled water despite the MRP being strictly lower than their selling price. “Look at our printed prices,” says a local single-screen cinema’s employee holding up a bottle of Aquafina against a board indicating ‘their’ price…well more than double its printed cost. Restaurants at Elephanta Caves, for instance, continue to charge blatantly beyond and above the MRP for almost all products. For foreigners and visitors to the island, registering a complaint means moving to mainland Mumbai and then filing a complaint with the Controller of Legal Metrology.  The procedure has been intentionally kept ambiguous for obvious reasons. Simply placing a board at the entrance of Elephanta Islands, informing all visitors to the Island to desist from paying anything beyond the MRP would easily inform all about the law and curb the practice. Ignorance of law is no excuse but then you can’t really expect foreigners to be aware of the local laws of the land…less so when just about every second person they encounter is an agent or a guide looking for that bit of commission.  The Controller could take things in his hands and put up a notice board on the Island prominently detailing the law and providing for guidelines and contact details in case of complaints.

(Readers may write in to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call DraftCraft’s chief media legal consultant Gajanan Khergamker on 022-22841593 for any assistance on RTI or to have their findings / issue featured on this page)

A very interesting query was posed by a visitor at an online RTI forum in October 2011. He was keen on knowing whether any BMC / MMRDA / CRZ norm had been violated / omitted / overlooked in granting permission for construction of a building in Charkop, Kandivali west in Mumbai. The query touched upon a very vital issue: One of the state’s natural resources being robbed systematically by a builder lobby throughout India.

The reason he offered for his suspicion was that prior to the building’s construction, the area had a full-fledged lake. “During heavy rains, it was supposed to collect water thereby protecting nearby areas from flooding,” he maintained.

“In Mumbai, still suffering from the aftershocks of 26/11, I fail to understand, how can permission be given by concerned authorities to cover up a lake and construct a building over there,” he queried.  He went on to add that all GPS / maps of India/Google Earth etc., still showed this area as a lake / water body.The query touches upon a very sensitive topic, which could, if probed further, wreak havoc within civic offices and a hard-nosed developer lobby.

Mumbai, which comprised seven islands till 1857 that were merged into one big island, had a rich reserve of natural resources like forests, lakes, mangroves etc.Needless to say, the onslaught of modernity coupled with the hurtling craze for providing housing in ‘lush, verdant environs,’ only led to the systematic and sure corrosion of the city’s natural resources. Once self-sufficient, the city is now unable to maintain its ever-growing population and tackle a concurrent pollution issues.

Earlier, a World Wild Fund for Nature (India) study had led to the formation of a draft report that documented the physical condition of the lakes in Mumbai. Apart from the better-known lakes - Tulsi, Powai and Vihar - which would provide water to Mumbai residents, there are a string of lakes that lie squarely within the Bombay Municipal Corporation jurisdiction get polluted by sewage, effluents and have remained largely neglected.

At a time when the rains either get delayed or are simply not enough to  meet the needs of a burgeoning population while most of the state on its part remains parched, Mumbai will have to cut down on its dependence on adjacent districts for its water requirements. A series of RTIs to government bodies made over the last few years have revealed that there is either little or no data available on the existence of lakes of Mumbai.

Owing to this lacuna, a lot of water bodies have been exploited and either filled up partially or reclaimed fully by developers to make way to accommodate residential or commercial structures.

The WWF study was undertaken to document the data on the existence of the lakes in question and assess their physical condition. The baseline data was created with the use of Google Earth website and the areas appearing to be lakes were marked on the Google Earth Images first and later verified by the field staff through onsite visits. The survey was conducted during September and October, 2008 and March, 2009.

Of the encroachments on the 27 lakes in the city, as revealed by the study, local residents had encroached to an extent of 53 per cent while the government had encroached to an extent of 26 per cent, ironically more than builders who had encroached a little lesser of about 21 per cent.

Of the land-use pattern around the lakes, 26 per cent of the land was used for old housing colonies followed obviously by temples that constituted about 14 per cent and 12 per cent by high-rises.

However, it’s the 18 per cent of hutments and the sporadic growth of illegal shanties,  in and around the zone that contributes to the incessant dumping in lakes and their subsequent ruin and disappearance.

Interestingly, in Mumbai’s Bhandup-Nahur, for instance, Google Earth  revealed the presence of seven lakes while visits by the group in Sept-Oct ’08 and in March ’09 revealed the presence of just one , exposing a rot that needs probing. The issue is vital in its far-reaching repercussions. Lakes and water-bodies all over India fall prey to an ever-powerful developer lobby which will stop at nothing to alter development plans and alter reality to suit their needs.

(Readers may write in to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call DraftCraft’s chief media legal consultant Gajanan Khergamker on 022-22841593 for any assistance on RTI or to have their findings / issue featured on this page)