CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000028/SG/14140
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000028/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. H.R. Ram
51-Vikas Nagar, Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-208024
Respondent (1) : Mr. U. S. Lal
CPIO & General Manager
Small Industries Development Bank of India,
SIDBI Tower, 15 Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001
Respondent (2) : Central Public Information Officer,
Chairman & Managing Director,
U.P. Industrial Consultants Ltd., (UPICO)
5th Floor, Handloom Bhawan,
Sarvoday Nagar, G.T. Road, Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh- 208002
RTI application filed on : 28/06/2010
PIO replied on : 20/07/2010
First Appeal filed on : 07/08/2010 with FAA of SIDBI and on 21/10/2010 with
FAA of UPIC
First Appellate Authority order on : 23/09/2010 (given by FAA of SIDBI, no order passed by
UPIC, FAA)
Second Appeal received on : 23/12/2010
Page 1 of 4
S.n Information sought Reply of PIO
o
1. A copy of the Balance sheet of UPICO Ltd., Kanpur A copy of the Balance sheet of U.P.
for 2007-08, 08-09, 09-2010. Industrial Consultants Ltd. (UPICO),
Kanpur for the year 2007-08 (13 pages)
and 2008-09(14 pages) be given to the
information seeker on payment of Rs. 54/-
by him as the document runs into 27
pages. Further, the
Balance sheet for the year 2009-10 is not
available with SIDBI and UPICO has
been advised to provide the same, if
available, directly to the information
seeker vide our letter dated July 02,2010
No. 7840 /RTI-5/337, copy endorsed to
the information seeker as well.
A copy of the income tax return for 2007-08, 08-09, A copy of the application has been
2. 09-2010. transferred to UPICO vide our letter dated
July 02, 2010 No, 7840 /RTI-5/337, copy
endorsed to the information seeker also, in
terms of section 6(3) of the ATI Act, 2005
as information in respect of these points
pertain to UPICO.
3. How much total money has been paid by UPICO in Same as above.
individual name of Shri Murali S Parihar, Kanpur,
and a Proprietor of Security Agency since Feb 2009
till date? Is it an irregularity or not? If yes, what
action has been taken by the CMD, UPICO?
4. The appointment of Shri. Vikram Hans as chairman, Appointment of Shri Vikram Hans as
UPICO and subsequently appointment on the post of Chairman & Managing Director has been
MD, UPICO by IDBI is against the rules 72(i) of made by IDBI Bank Ltd. (IDBI) for a
memorandum & Article of association of UPICO as tenure period of 3 years commencing
the share holding of IDBI was diluted long time back February 25, 2009. SIDBI has acquired
to 48.55% from 51.5%. has SIDBI endorsed to this IDBI’s shareholding in UPICO in
mistake? If so, how and why? September 2009
5. A copy of latest memorandum & articles of Copy of available Memorandum &
association o UPICO with its date of effectiveness. Articles of Association of UPICO (54
pages) received from UPICO on April 19,
2010 be given to the information seeker
on payment of Rs. 108 by him. The date
of effectiveness is not available with
SIDBI.
6. Names and addresses of all the board of directors of Name and address of the Board of
UPICO with their phone numbers, mobile numbers, Directors of UPICO and their mobile no.,
fax and addresses. telephone no, & fax no., wherever
available, are shown against the names of
the Directors as given in Annexure -1
7. Are you aware of a Lab Assistant who had consumed SIDBI received a letter from Shri Saurabh
poison a couple of days back and was hospitalized Mishra, Lab Assistant, UPICO on June 15,
for 4/5 days? Are you aware CMD,UPICO along 2010 in the matter. CMD, UPICO has
with his 4 colleagues have been summoned by the been advised vide our letter dated June 28,
court of law on 28/29th of June, 10 for beating a class 2010 to furnish his comments.
IV employee of UPICO. If so, what action has been Information about court summons to
taken by SIDBI so for or intend to take? CMD, UPICO is not on our records.
8. Please provide a list of 20 and odds to whom List of 43 candidates / appointments
appointment orders were issued by the CMD, UPICO received tram UPICO vide letter dated
after joining of UPICO i.e. FEB.25, 2009 till today? June 17, 2010 is given in Annexure
Page 2 of 4-Il.
These recruitments were without following SIDBI has no information on other
recruitment rules and reservation policy of GOI, did queries.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete information provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Copy of the SIDBI, FAA order not enclosed. No order passed by the UPICO, FAA.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been provided by the Respondent no.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. P. N. Ram representing Mr. H.R. Ram;
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Garg, FFA and Mr. U. S. Lal, CPIO & General Manager on video
conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio;
The Appellant has been provided the information which was available with SIDBI, Lucknow
by the PIO. For some of the information which was not available with SIDBI the PIO has transferred
the RTI application to PIO, UPICO, Kanpur. The respondent states that UPICO is a company in
which SIDBI holds 49% share and 34% of the shareholding is held by other public sector banks. Thus
according to the statements of the Respondent 83% of the shareholding of the UPICO is held by
Government Institutions. Hence it was legitimate for the PIO to have transferred the RTI application to
the PIO of UPICO. The PIO of UPICO has not appeared at the NIC-Studio at Kanpur. There appears
to be no reason for the PIO of UPICO not to have provided the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO of UPICO to provide the information to the
Appellant before 15 September 2011. In case no PIO has been appointed in
contravention of the RTI Act the Chairman & Managing Director of UPICO is directed
to provide the information and appoint the PIO failing which the Commission will take
appropriate action for violation of the RTI Act.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO of UPICO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO, UPICO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his
reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
PIO, UPICO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 15 September 2011
at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information
to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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.
Page 3 of 4
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)
Page 4 of 4