16 Hours Ago
I invite the attention to the loot of public money by borrower like M/s Surya Vinayak Ltd who has a outstanding of Rs 2066 Crore against the assets of Rs 200 Crore pledged with the Public Sector Banks. I have been following this since 2012 and was instrumental in getting a PE registered by CBI but no headway is made in recovering the Bank money which is astronomical to the tune of Rs 2066 Crore against Rs 200 Assets pledged.
As I was not reaching anywhere in this case (despite dozen of RTI application filed with PNB, which is the leading Bank for loans to this firm) then with the limited knowledge I possess, I filed a RTI application and then a Complaint with CIC (Copy Enclosed) praying for declaration of this entity as "public authority" under the RTI Act 2005.
I submitted "It ishumbly submitted that M/s Surya Vinayak Limited, 13-B,Third Floor, NetajiSubhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Company) is a “public authority” underSection 2(h)(d)(ii) of RTI Act 2005 as it has been substantially financed bypublic authority namely Punjab National Bank and other Public Sector Banks asagainst a nominal capital, the Company hasbeen substantially financed to the tune of Rs 2066 Crore (please see column 5,6 &7at page 16 of Times of India, Delhi Edition dated 01st August2013)." UNQUOTE.
My complaint is pending with CIC and hope to get it declared it as a public authority under RTI Act 2005 as it has more funds of public money then their Capital (Hundred Times) and as such it fits in Thallapam judgment, Section 2(h) requirement and once if it is done then we would know how thousand of crores were lent to this Entity and how the same were used/spent.
I am bringing this case here to get more inputs and valuable suggestions of members so that We can take it to logical conclusions.
And coming back to topic of this thread and comments made by learned Seniors, I have nothing to say but that Public Sector Banks crawl when asked to bend.
Can anyone say that there is due diligence word in Indian Banker's dictionary?
This is not the isolated case, I have another which also I will narrate soon.
Looking for valuable comments.
The Rightto Information Act, 2005
CENTRALINFORMATION COMMISSION, DELHIunder Section 18 of RTI Act 2005.
Bhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of State Public InformationOfficer of Surya Vinayak Limited, I hereby file this complaint for your kinddecision.
1. Details of appellant/complainant
1.1 Full Name: Harinder Dhingra
1.2. Full Address: D4A/7 D L F Phase 01, Gurgaon-122002
1.3 Phone/Cell No.: 09873929500
1.4 Email ID: email@example.com
2. Details of SPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation: S P IO under RTI Act of Surya Vinayak
2.2 Full Address: 13-B, Third Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg,
2.3 Name of Public Authority: Ministry of Banking Division, GOI
3. Details of First Appellate Authority :
3.1 Name/Designation of the FAA: N A
3.2 Full Address of FAA: N A
4. Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
4.1 To SPIO: 03rd August 2013& mailed on: 07thAugust 2013
4.2 To FAA: N A
5. Particulars of Decisions:
5.1 Ref No & Date of SPIO Decision: NO DECISION
5.2 Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision: N A
6. Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:
6.1 SPIO: 08th April 2013
6.2 FAA: N A
7. Details of information sought: As mentioned at “1-5”
8. Brief facts of the case: As mentioned at “1-5”
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal / complaint:It is humbly submittedthat M/s Surya Vinayak Limited, 13-B,Third Floor, Netaji Subhash Marg,Daryaganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Company) is a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of RTIAct 2005 as it has been substantially financed by public authority namelyPunjab National Bank and other Public Sector Banks as against a nominalcapital, the Company has beensubstantially financed to the tune of Rs 2066 Crore (please see column 5,6 &7at page 16 of Times of India, Delhi Edition dated 01st August2013).
Nowthe funds are to be recovered by selling off Assets which is likely to be theloss of many a times of the Capital of the Company and by any stretch ofimagination is NOT ONLY SUBSTANTIALL BUT MORE THAN THE CAPITAL OF COMPANY thusmaking the Company a “public Authority” under Section 2(h)of RTI Act 2005.
I reproduceSection 2(h) of RTI Act 2005 for everyone’s benefit; QUOTE “
(h)"public authority" means any authority or body or institution ofself- government established or constituted— (a) by or under theConstitution;
(b) by any other lawmade by Parliament;
(c) by any other lawmade by State Legislature;
(d) by notificationissued or order made by the appropriate Government,
(i) body owned,controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Governmentorganisation substantially financed,
directlyor indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;” UNQUOTE
Readingof Section 2(h) of the RTI Act as contained in the Official Gazette would makeit clear that the words "and includes" are not part of Clause (d),but they are placed separately, independently and away from Clause (d) ofSection 2(h) of the RTI Act. The words "and includes" is not joinedto clause (d) but starts in a new line from the left extreme margin. Thecategories of bodies or institutions or authorities covered by Sections 2(h)(a), (b), (c) and (d) are therefore "stand alone" authorities orbodies. The words "and includes" beginning in a fresh line from theleft margin is intended to indicate another set of bodies which may not fallwithin the categories of Section 2(h) (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Asregards the words "and includes", they are disjunctive and indicativeof a separate set of entities. The discussion in the recent judgment of thisCourt in Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. v. Ramesh Chander Bawa 2010 (V) AD (Del) 405 may be usefullyreferred to. There the question was whether a multi-state cooperative societyis a „public authority‟withinthe meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. It is in that context that inpara 13, it was observed:
"13.Before embarking on a more detailed analysis it is necessary to recapitulatethe law concerning interpretation of the conjunctive "and includes".The expression "and includes" connotes that those entities whichanswer the description following those words need not fall within thedefinition of entities that precede those words. The word "includes"is generally understood in statutory interpretation as enlarging the meaning ofthe words or phrases in the body of the statute. In CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel(1971) 3 SCC 550 the Supreme Court was considering whether the word plant‟inSection 10 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1922, include sanitary pipes and fittingsin a building as well? Section 10(5) had defined „plant‟to include "vehicles, books, scientificapparatus, surgical equipment purchased for the purpose of business." TheCourt held: "The word "includes" is often used in
interpretationclauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring inthe body of the statute. When it is so used, those words and phrases must beconstrued as comprehending not only such things as they signify according totheir nature and import but also those things which the interpretation clausedeclares that they shall include."
It ishumbly submitted that Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is in two parts: an authorityor body or institution of self-Government becomes "public authority"if it is established or constituted in any manner provided in Clause (a) to(d). Once it falls under any of the aforesaid four categories, there is nofurther or additional requirement at all and such an authority or body orinstitution of self-Government will be treated as "public authority".This becomes clear from the reading of four clauses, as such a body to becomepublic authority is either constituted by or under the Constitution or by orunder the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature or by Notificationissued or made by the appropriate Government. They are, thus, having eitherconstitutional/statutory character or Governmental flavor because of theirconstitution by the appropriate Government.
It isfurther submitted that in the second category, some more bodies are sought tobe included by the incorporation of the words "and includes any".These are included Clauses (i) and (ii). The requirement for these bodies
is asunder: viz.,
(i)Body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) Non-GovernmentOrganization substantially financed, and both should be directly or indirectlyby funds provided by the appropriate Government. Thus, if it is a body eitherowned by the appropriate Government or controlled by the appropriate Governmentor substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government,it would become public authority. Any of the aforesaid requirements issufficient, viz. either ownership or control or substantially financed. When itcomes to the NGO, obviously such an NGO not be owned or controlled orsubstantially financed by the appropriate Government directly or indirectly byfunds provided by the appropriate Government.
Once we read the definition of "public authority" in Section2(h) of the RTI Act in the aforesaid manner, obvious conclusion would be thatthe Committee is a "public authority" as it is constituted by theappropriate Government as stipulated under Section 2(h)(d) of RTI Act 2005
10. Prayer/relief sought for: First &Foremost it is prayed that SURYA VINAYAK is declared “public authority” asstipulated under Section 2 of RTI Act 2005.
The undersigned prays for actionunder Section 25(5) of the RTI Act 2005 by the Hon’ble Central InformationCommission to initiate steps & give directions so that the implementationof RTI act 2005 is done according to rules & regulations of the Act 2005.
The undersigned also prays forcompensation of Rs 500000/- under Section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act 2005 from bothbesides seeking (Learned SPIO) cost of litigation forenforcing a totally unwarranted litigation on me with the sole malafide aim ofsuppression of corruption.
11. Personal Presence at hearing: YES
12. Declaration: I hereby state that the information and particularsgiven above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declarethat this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pendingwith any Court or tribunal or authority.
Date: 24th September 2013
Signature of appellant/complainant