Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri. Tulsi Prasad Soni vs National Bank For Agriculture And … on 19 August, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri. Tulsi Prasad Soni vs National Bank For Agriculture And … on 19 August, 2011
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                 Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000453/SG/14175
                                                        Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000453/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :     Mr. Tulsi Prasad Soni
                                           Besides Swaroop Talkies
                                           Gayatri Mandir Ward,Durg
                                           Durg-491001

Respondent                           :     Mr. P. Satish
                                           CPIO & Chief General Manager
                                           NABARD C-24, G Block
                                           Bandra Kula Complex
                                           Bandra East,
                                           Mumbai-400051

RTI application filed on             :     26/07/2010
PIO replied on                       :     11/08/2010
First Appeal filed on                :     04/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on   :     23/11/2010
Second Appeal received on            :     14/01/2011

S.No              Information Sought                                  Reply of PIO
1.       why SMR and Co. was not blacklisted in     When some SCA refuses to work then the work
       2009-10,when it refused to work. Why CA      is shifted to next firm/stand by firm. No firm is
       Farm was kept in the same list even in the   blacklisted when it refuses to work. The
       next year, please provide your policy        instruction notices are attached herewith.
       documents if it is your policy.

2.      Why in 2007-2009 Paras Chajaed Company during 2003-04 to 2006-07,the statutory
       was not kept in cooling? Why was it kept in auditing work of the bank was given to Chajed
       first stand-by.                              and Gundher, Rajnandgaon(union code no.
                                                    201485) as SPA. During 2007-08 and 2008-09
                                                    firm was kept in cooling period. Paras Chajed
                                                    Co.(UCN 780501) in 2007-08 it is the first
                                                    stand by firm which is a completely different
                                                    company which is apparent by its union code
                                                    number.
3.     In 2007-08, when SMR and Co. refused to In 2007-08 SMR & Co. worked as SCA, that
       work then why wasn't the stand by time Paras Chajed was at Stand By at first
       company, Chajed and Company suggested as position. It continued till 2008-09 and 2009-10.
       SCS.                                         In 2008-09 SMR & Co. refused to work as SCA
                                                    and Paras and Chajed worked as SCA for
                                                    regional bank.
4.     Were in years 2007-08 to 2009-10, Chajed In 2007-08 Chajed and Gundher were kept on
       And Co. kept in First stand by so as to keep stand by and SMR was appointed as SMR.
       it as an alternative to SMR and Co. in years Paras Chajed and Co. was at first stand by
       2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11(that's why position and Anand Jimani & Associates was
       SMR & Co. was not black listed) and in kept as second stand by. In 2008-09 and 2009-
       years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 10 these firm were at the same position. Both
       they could become SCA from a Stand by these firms are different, and refusing
            firm, and that way they could be kept as SCA/SBA does not make a firm ineligible.
           auditors in 11 consecutive years out of 12
           years.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO.


Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Reiterated the reply of the PIO dated 11 August 2010 .

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. P. Satish, CPIO & Chief General Manager on video conference from NIC- Mumbai
Studio;

The respondent states that he has provided all the information as per available records to the
Appellant. From a perusal of the records this papers to be correct.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information available on the records appears to have been provided.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GS)