Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4186/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000074
Dated, the 17th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Sangram Singh
Name of the Public Authority: Central UP Gas Ltd. (CUGL)
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 17/7/2009.
2. In response to the appellant’s RTI application dated 30-10-2008 for certain
information, the respondent stated that CUGL was not a public sector unit and
therefore it was not covered under the provisions of the RTI Act. Being not
satisfied with the respondent’s reply, the appellant submitted before the
Commission that the respondent is a Joint Venture Company between BPCL,
GAIL and the U.P. Government, which together hold 50% of the shares. The
appellant has, therefore, pleaded that the respondent is supported by the public
funds and therefore it should be covered under the provisions of the RTI Act, as
per section 2(h) of the Act.
3. In the course of hearing, the respondent stated that Central UP Gas
Limited is a Public Company Limited by shares within the meaning of Section
3(1)(iv) of the Companies Act 1956, and is neither a Public Sector Undertakings
nor a subsidiary of a PSU. Therefore, the respondent is not covered u/s 2(h) of
the Act.
4. During the hearing, the respondent stated that the requested information
as per available records have been furnished to the appellant, copy of which was
also submitted to the Commission.
Decision:
5. A close examination of the documents submitted by the parties
demonstrate that of the total initial investment of Rs.60 crores,, the contribution of
major share holders was as under:
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi1
a) GAIL 22.5%
b) BPCL 22.5%
c) ADB 20.0%
d) IDF 15.05
e) PAN ASIA 15.0% and
f) UPG 5.0%.
(Memorandum and Articles of Association of CUGL page-4)
6. Thus it conclusively demonstrate that at least 50% of the total capital
outlay was indirectly contributed by the instrumentalities of the government, i.e.
GAIL-22.5%, BPCL-22.5% and UP Government-5%.
7. In so far as the constitution of the Board of Directors is concerned, the
Directors of the Board are appointed in the following manner:
GAIL (2)
BPCL (2)
UPG (or their nominee) (1)
ADB (1)
IDF (1)
PAN ASIA (1)
Total (8)
(Memorandum and Articles of Association of CUGL page-41)
8. In the course of hearing, it also emerged that the Chairman of the
respondent is appointed on rotation basis from the nominees of GAIL and BPCL.
Clearly, of the eight members of the Board of Directors, at least five of them are
nominated members of GAIL (2), BPCL (2) and UP Government (1) and the
Chairman is one of the nominee Directors from GAIL or BPCL on rotation basis.
The composition of Board of Directors shows that the two major PSUs – GAIL
and BPCL- have substantial control on the operation of the respondent.
9. As stated above, the GAIL, BPCL and UP Government together have
contributed at least 50% of the initial funding which comes to Rs.30 crores which
is by any reckoning a substantial amount of funding by the PSUs which are
functioning as the instrument of Government. We, therefore, hold that the
respondent is a public authority under section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act.
10. The Chairman of the respondent is, therefore, directed to comply with the
provisions of the RTI Act and submit a compliance report within three months
from the date of issue of this decision.
11. Since a reply to the RTI application submitted by the appellant has already
been provided, the appellant is free to submit his first appeal to the respondent in
2
case he is not satisfied with the PIO’s response dated July 10, 2009. The
appellant would be free to approach the Commission again if he is not satisfied
with the decisions of the PIO and the Appellate Authority of the respondent. The
appellant should however ensure that the requested information is in accordance
with the provisions of section 2(f) of the Act, which requires that the desired
information should be available in any material form.
12. With these observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Sangram Singh, EWS-191, Avas Vikas-3, P.O: NSI, Kalyanpur,
Kanpur – 17 (U.P.).
2. Shri. A.K. Dutta, PIO, Central UP Gas Ltd., 7th floor, UPSIDC Complex, A-
1/4 Lakhanpur, Kanpur – 208 024.
3. The Appellate Authority, Central UP Gas Ltd., 7th floor, UPSIDC Complex,
A-1/4 Lakhanpur, Kanpur – 208 024.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
3