CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2824/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/0157
September 22, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section
[Hearing on 12.9.2008 at 12.30 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. V. N. Nanda
Public authority: UTI Technology Services Ltd.
UTI MF
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. Krishna Singh, CVO
For Appellant:
Mr. V.K. Nanda
Mrs. Indra Nanda
DECISION
This matter which has already been disposed of by a decision in Appeal
No. 2167/ICPB/08 dated 13.6.2008 was taken up for hearing again on a
reference sent through an e-mail by one Mr. V.T. Gokhale, who is an appellant in
other connected cases raising doubts whether UTI Technology Services Ltd is a
public authority or not. This Commission has noted in the aforesaid decision that
UTI Technology Services Ltd. is not a public authority. However, this organization
was instructed to provide information to the appellant with reference to his
investments. Accordingly this case was taken up for hearing on 12.9.2008,
which was attended by the appellant accompanied by his wife. The public
authority was represented by Mr. Krishna Singh, CVO. Considering the keen
interest shown by Mr. V.T.Gokhale, notice of hearing was issued to him also.
However, he has not attended the hearing. As far as the appellant is concerned,
he has applied for UTI Bond under US’64 jointly with his mother, whereas the
UTI has issued the bonds on either or survivor basis and the bond has already
been en-cashed by the other holder, viz., his mother. His main grievance is
when he has purchased this particular bond jointly along with his mother the
encashment should have been done after it has been signed by both. In
response to this the UTI has clearly stated this bond has been purchased by him
only as either or survivor scheme and not jointly and therefore they were within
their right to allow encashment to one of the holder. As far as this issue is
concerned the appellant cannot agitate such matter before the Commission since
the Commission has no mandate to look into such disputes. He has to take up
1
such issues before the relevant legal forum. The issue whether M/s UTI
Technology Services Ltd. is a public authority or not was deliberated upon once
again during the hearing. The representative who attended the hearing
maintained that M/s UTI Technology Services rendered Ltd. is not a public
authority by putting his arguments. Still in order to further clarify the matter he
has been directed to provide the following submissions to the Commission within
15 days from the date of receipt of this direction:
UTI Technology Services Ltd. has to explain how it cannot be treated as a
public authority under section 2(h) of RTI Act. They have to explain very
clearly whether they have been funded substantially by the UTI or by any
other Government organization. While making this submission, UTI
Technology Services Ltd. should also indicate how they conduct the
activities in their Board and how the Board has been constituted and
whether they have been sharing any profit with UTI and how they have
been charging the UTI for the services etc. should be included in the
submissions before the Commission. He is also directed to send one copy
of this submission to Mr. V.T. Gokhale, who may after going through the
same give his comments.
After the receipt of response to the above directions, the matter will be finally
decided.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
A copy of this decision may also be sent to Mr. V.T. Gokhale.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Krishna Singh, PIO, UTI Technology Services Ltd., Plot No.3, Sector 11,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400614.
2. Mr. V.N. Nanda, Sector B-4, Flat 3006, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070.
3. Mr. V.T.Gokhale, Parvati Nivas, Savarkar Road, Dombivli (East) – 421201.
2