RTI jurisdiction, NOW over Private Corporate bodies : CIC

Dear Sir 

Pl let me know whether URCs ( Unit Run Canteens) claimed to be privately run ventures by the publicly held officials ranks of genrals , brigadiers, colonels , majors , captains , PBORs and their equivalents in ither three services as well as Defence Audit Deaprtments , Canteen Stores Departments , NCC Directorate, GREF etc etc are under RTI Act or not.  Pl refer to SC Civil appeal No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009 which is being referred to your worthies / Counterparts in the Army namely the JAG BR Army. 

Today I chanced to vis the CIC decisions on URC. I am attaching the same for info all:_

19444_217236_46_cic_ls_a_2011_000810_m_58454.pd

 This is exactly the view expressed by CAG on the issue. Mr Padeep Kumar , the present incumbent CVC was the Defence Secretary when such order was supposedly manged. We need no LOKPAL as our enemies are from within , it will eat the LOKPAL from inside. What is the point of having such orders of another CIC for the private bodies to cheer about?

I am putting five points against the silent verdict of the CIC upholding that URC is a private venture of the armed forces . Here I go :

a)   URCs are exclusive Retail shops of CSD . Govt of India literally bleeds in providing CSD facility to the three services of the armed forces stores at a rate cheaper than the prevailing market rates. If URCs are private ventures let the govt closes CSD Depot and auction it Wallmart / Reliance or some private ventures which will be sufficient for 3 Moon copycat missions with some surplus for MNREGA.

 b)    CSD Canteens alias URCs are provided accomodations with a negligle Licence Fee . Eg  Licence Fee being charged from MCEME  URC for 806 sq mtr of pucca accomodation is mere Rs 4030 . No charges are being levied for the double the said amount land being utilised for parking etc .As per civil mkt rate the rent will go in crores.

 c )    Who runs those URCs? The armed forces personnel. Who are then paid extra duty pay from the LOOT. Aren't they employees of the govt? Aren't they suppose to deposit the amount to the govt exchequers ? How can a govt employee be made to work for a private venture?

 d)     CAG who is now-a-days roaring like a tiger .did not make its case earlier to get the profits of the CSD canteens to the govt exchequer. He is now making feeble attempt just to show its inability put a full stop to commercial use of govt accn for the private ventures run by the armed forces gove salaried personnel. Is it so difficult to put a full stop by the roaring tiger?

e)   BOCCS the apex body of the canteen services which decides the Loot and scoot is a all govt body. DDGCS which claims to have the full auth to run private ventures in defence land/ accomodation is a govt body. GM CSD , Adelphi Mumbai which issues registration Numbers to the URCs( the so called private body ) is govt body.

f ) The defence minister is the chairman of BOCCS. He is the one who approves transfer of CSD profits to the URCs in the name of trade discounts , grant in aid, QD etc etc( i.e to the private bodies) .

 g)  As per Defence Services Regulations CSD accounts are to be audited by the regimental officers to put a stamp of honesty. And who are those regimental officers ? They are salaried govt servants. Can the govt servants be engaged to audit the accounts of a private venture?

 The game is up. I need Lawyers forum to help fight the decision of the CIC as well as the mischieveous interpretation of the SC civil appaeal rRuling on status of employees in URCs No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009.

I need help

Private Schools come under RTI Act

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

`B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan New Delhi 110066

Appeal No.CIC//MA/A/2008/01117Decision No.5607/IC(A)/2010

Name of the Appellants:Ms. Bindu Khanna D-688, 2nd Floor, C.R. Park New Delhi 110 019.

Respondent Public Authorities:Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi District South, Defence Colony New Delhi 110 024.

Third Party: Pinnacle School D-Block, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi.

Date of Hearing:30.06.2010

Date of Decision:14.07.2010

(the relevant CIC order file is attached)

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Dear Hemant,

Once again a very good and input from you enriching the forum.

Kindly keep on posting.

Thanks

Kumar

It will be great news those harreshed by private co. those not received any type of grant to govt.

Mr ML Sharma one of the ICs in Central Info Commission who is almost permanently entrusted with the ministry of Defence is giving ruling contrary to above mentioned one in respect to URCs being run by Armed forces , by the department of Defence namely CDA, CSD , DRDO , DGQA etc etc.

What do you expect from retired officials who adorn the CIC?

Dear All

We must keep the pressue. Decision to entrust Mr ML Sharma , an ex -Police officer and continue with him without shuffling is not an isolated incident. Here we are congratulating each other for a decision by one of the ICs in the same Central Info Commission on the other hand resigning stating nothing can be expected out of those retired personnel employed as CIC & ICs.

Dr Prasayat.J who wrote the judgement on the status of URC employees on a civil case No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009 and retired on 10 May 2009 is also not an isolated incident. As per judgement URCs are Private Ventures. Army JAG Br then inferred that hence URCs are not instrumentality of the state hence not covered by RTI act. The CAG has raised the issue but kept mum on the judgement and the inference drawn.Those offices are packed with defence audit officials who are the direct beneficiaries of the running of URCs. So that's also not an isolated incident.

PAC in its latest report/recommendations has analysed the issue at length and has come to the conclusion that URCs are instrumentality of the state. In one hand we go to the extreme with POILITICIAN BASHINGS for their misdeeds but do not pay attention when they try to undo some wrong being perpetrated by the CAG/DEFENCE  AUDIT /Bureaucrats in the min of defence.

What stops CAG to file a curative petition in the supreme court  against the decision of Dr Prasayat. J ?