v

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Suggestions & Objection on Maharashtra RERA

To,
Principal Secretary,
Housing Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032

Sub – Suggestions and objection on the Maharashtra Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2016

Dear Sir,
As per gazette notification dated 8 December 2016 . I am sending my suggestion and objections on Maharashtra Real Estate(Regulation and Development)(Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2016

I raise my serious objection on the email id itself because the way it has been created is mischievous act . In this suggesstionsonrera@maharashtra.gov.in id spelling of suggestion deliberately ‘SS” has been put before “t” . This has been done to prevent people from giving suggestions and objections.



My suggestions to the rule are,

1)It is not new that builders have exploited homebuyer in this country since long. Most of the time individual buyers were cornered, threatened and coerced to give up their rights, silenced and intimidated. There are very few buyers who dare to lodge complaint against builders. Proposed rules also designed to prevent buyer from filling a complaint. For filing a complaint or an appeal with the Authority, a complainant will have to pay a fee of Rs 10,000. Actually in central rules fee of Rs 1,000 is stipulated. Ther is adequate provision in act to penalise frivolous complaints. Questions arise on the need for imposing a fee burden on already aggrieved complainants.  Hence these fees should be waived off .


2)In model form of agreement to sale there is one very dangerous provision  . If the Allottee fails to rectifies the breach or breaches mentioned by the Promoter within the period of notice then at the end of such notice period, promoter shall be entitled to terminate the Agreement and upon termination of this Agreement the Promoter, shall be at liberty to dispose of and sell the Apartment to such person and at such price as the Promoter may in his absolute discretion think fit. The notice period will of seven days and by email. And after notice period is over promoter shall be at liberty to dispose of and sell the Apartment only to such person and at such price as the Promoter may in his absolute discretion think fit. Hence there should be ample provision so that builder / promoter would not be able to mischievous or frivolous complaint of breach of agreement

3)There is more dangerous proviso ahead, that upon termination of the Agreement as aforesaid, the Promoter shall refund to the allottee within a period of six months of the termination. That too subject to adjustment and recovery of any agreed liquidated damages or any other amount which may be payable to Promoter. Promoter is entitled to do this at any time of agreement period. That means even if buyer has paid 90% of the amount promoter can terminate the agreement on any ground. And refund will be without interest. This provision should be changed and promoter builder should refund amount immediately and if payment is delayed there should interest plus heavy penalty.

4)The central rules while registering the project with authority registration fee of rupees ten per square meter for residential projects where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed one thousand square meters; or rupees twenty per square meter for residential projects where the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds one thousand square meters has been proposed. And for commercial or any other projects rupees fifty per square meter for  where the areaof land proposed to be developed does not exceed one thousand square meters; or rupees one hundred per square meter where the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds one thousand square meters has been proposed .

However in Maharashtra rules for the same area registration fee of only one and two rupees has been proposed for residential project and no fee has been proposed for commercial projects.

Furthermore in central rules to prevent extension for completion of  project double of the fee for registration has been proposed while in Maharashtra rule it has been kept as it is for registration of project. All above provisions should be like central rules only


5)To protect buyers from being deceiving by real estate agents, the central  Rules mandate the revocation of registration of real estate agent in case of any default while Maharashtra rules allow fresh application for grant of registration cannot be made again only after a period of six months by such real estate agent. If such provision is allowed agents will happily allow to revoke their registration as profit made by them by deceiving innocent buyers will much more than revocation of registration. In this case agents whose licence is revoked should not be allowed to enter into same business once again


6)In central rules to prevent discrimination of allotees mandates the promoter to submit the declaration to be submitted that the promoter shall not discriminate against any allottee at the time of allotment of any apartment, plot or building, as the case may be.In Maharashtra rules this provision has not been included at all .This provision should be included in Maharashtra rules

7)Central rules mandate promoter wile registering the project with authourity to give brief details of the projects launched by the promoter in the last five years, whether already completed or being developed, as the case may be, including the current status of the said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases pending, details of type of land and payments pending etc.
In Maharashtra rules in information related to the current status of the said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases pending, details of type of land and payments pending etc has been deleted.
As well information related to audited balance sheet of the promoter for the preceding financial year and income tax returns of the promoter for three preceding financial years; and copy of balance sheet has also been deleted in Maharashtra rules. .These provision should be included in Maharashtra rules

8) As per central rules In case the promoter applies for withdrawal of application for registration of the project before the expiry of the period of 30 days registration fee to the extent of ten percent paid or rupees fifty thousand whichever is more, shall be retained as processing fee by the regulatory authority and the remaining amount shall be refunded to the promoter within thirty days from the date of such withdrawal. In Maharashtra rules amount of retaining money has to be decided by regulatory authority. .This provision should be included in Maharashtra rules

9) There is also ambiguity in the definition of land cost and construction cost to be withdrawn from escrow account. These ambiguities should be removed

Related Stories

Builder bureaucrat nexus makes Maharashtra RERA Rules nightmare for home buyers

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

Friday, December 23, 2016

Builder bureaucrat nexus makes Maharashtra RERA Rules nightmare for home buyers

The primary object to enact the Real Estate Act was to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal, establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or Building in an efficient and transparent manner. However the draft rules framed by government of Maharashtra are contrary to the basic objective of the act. Instead of protecting buyers rights the rules if passed as it is, will intimidate consumers and help promoters.


Image courtesy http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/


The last date of filling suggestion and objection on The draft Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulationand Development) (Registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of RealEstate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2016(“Draft Rules”) ends today i.e. 23rd December, 2016. The people concerned with drafting these rules have taken adequate care so that people should not file much suggestions and objections. Even though it is mandatory these rules are not published in Marathi language. It was expected that the Draft Rules would be based on the Centre’s rules for the Union Territories .Butit seems that the literary genius in Mantaralaya have adopted rules framed by Builder/promoters.

It is not new that builders have exploited home-buyer in this country since long. Most of the time individual buyers were cornered, threatened and coerced to give up their rights, silenced and intimidated. There are very few buyers who dare to lodge complaint against builders. Proposed rules are designed to prevent buyer from filling a complaint. For filing a complaint or an appeal with the Authority, a complainant will have to pay a fee of Rs 10,000. Actually in central rules fee of Rs 1,000 is stipulated. There is adequate provision in act to penalize frivolous complaints. Questions arise on the need for imposing a fee burden on already aggrieved complainants. 

In model form of agreement to sale there is one very dangerous provision. If the Allottee fails to rectify the breach or breaches mentioned by the Promoter within the period of notice then at the end of such notice period, promoter shall be entitled to terminate the Agreement and upon termination of this Agreement the Promoter shall be at liberty to dispose of and sell the Apartment to such person and at such price as the Promoter may in his absolute discretion thinks fit. The notice period will of seven days and by email only.

There is more dangerous proviso ahead, that upon termination of the Agreement as aforesaid, the Promoter shall refund to the allottee within a period of six months of the termination. That too subject to adjustment and recovery of any agreed liquidated damages or any other amount which may be payable to Promoter. Promoter is entitled to do this at any time of agreement period. That means even if buyer has paid 90% of the amount promoter can terminate the agreement on any ground. And refund will be without interest.

In central rules while registering the project with authority registration fee of rupees ten per square meter for residential projects where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed one thousand square meters; or rupees twenty per square meter for residential projects where the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds one thousand square meters has been proposed. And for commercial or any other projects rupees fifty per square meter for where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed one thousand square meters; or rupees one hundred per square meter where the area of land proposed to be developed exceeds one thousand square meters has been proposed.

However in Maharashtra rules for the same area registration fee of only one and two rupees has been proposed for residential project respectively and no fee has been proposed for commercial projects.

Furthermore in central rules to prevent extension for completion of project double of the fee for registration has been proposed while in Maharashtra rule it has been kept as it is for registration of project.

To protect buyers from being deceiving by real estate agents, the central  Rules mandate the revocation of registration of real estate agent in case of any default, while Maharashtra rules allow fresh application for grant of registration after a period of six months only. If such provision is allowed agents will happily allow to revoke their registration as profit made by them by deceiving innocent buyers will much more than revocation of registration.

In central rules to prevent discrimination of allotees mandates the promoter to submit the declaration to be submitted that the promoter shall not discriminate against any allottee at the time of allotment of any apartment, plot or building, as the case may be. In Maharashtra rules this provision has not been included at all. This provision may have been made to through Maharashtra people to through out of Mumbai

Central rules mandate promoter wile registering the project with authority to give brief details of the projects launched by the promoter in the last five years, whether already completed or being developed, as the case may be, including the current status of the said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases pending, details of type of land and payments pending etc.

In Maharashtra rules in information related to the current status of the said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases pending, details of type of land and payments pending etc. has been deleted. As well information related to audited balance sheet of the promoter for the preceding financial year and income tax returns of the promoter for three preceding financial years; and copy of balance sheet has also been deleted in Maharashtra rules

As per central rules In case the promoter applies for withdrawal of application for registration of the project before the expiry of the period of 30 days registration fee to the extent of ten percent paid or rupees fifty thousand whichever is more, shall be retained as processing fee by the regulatory authority and the remaining amount shall be refunded to the promoter within thirty days from the date of such withdrawal. In Maharashtra rules amount of retaining money has to be decided by regulatory authority.

There is also ambiguity in the definition of land cost and construction cost to be withdrawn from escrow account.

In the nutshell Maharashtra real estate rules 2016 may have been framed by some builders and if passed as are will create havoc in real estate sector.


 Subscribe for Free


To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Website – http://surajya.org/

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Complaint against wasteful expenditure on coffee table book by CIC

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi is engaged in taking steps to curb corruption, many agencies are involved in encouraging corrupt practices. Wasteful expenditure of public money to impress authorities is also corruption. Recently a coffee table book on success stories of Right to Information “Trust Through Transparency” was unveiled at central information commission’s (CIC ) annual Convention. CIC has spent more than 17 lakh rupees on that book, but only 6 copies of the book were ready at the unveiling function. 



Copies of the book could not be distributed amongst Information commissioners or other participants present at the Convention for the reasons best known to CIC only. However, a soft copy of the book was published on the CIC web site on the same day. Big question is where was the need to print the book at an exorbitant cost of Rs. 17 lakhs when it was to be published on line? This is complete waste of public funds because the only purpose served was to uplift the image of the Chief Information Commissioner.

Normally coffee table book is an oversize, large, expensive book with a lot of pictures, intended to be looked at rather than read. As mentioned in book itself it was printed for limited circulation and academic purpose only. However coffee table books are not meant for academic purpose.


As well as per the press and registration of books act, 1867, every book or paper printed within India must have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing. The coffee table book does not mention any of it. The book was unveiled at the hands of union home minister

Over 800 copies of the book are​ ​now being sent to the CIC by Yashavantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration (YASHADA) from Pune.​​ ​Transportation will cost about Rs. 8000 by rail. However, copies of the book now to be sent (If at all sent) to individual dignitaries from Delhi by any mode will cost over Rs. 4 lakhs, thus making the total cost of the project at over Rs. 21 lakhs. Despatching the book of just 124 pages but costing over​ Rs. 1700 ​ ​per copy and weighing over a 1.6 kilo will thus put additional burden on the finances.

Although the stories published in this Coffee Table book are no doubt ​​inspirational. ​Spending  ​Rs. ​21 lakhs on this project, especially when book is available online is complete waste of resources and funds.


In nut shell, CIC​ ​in collaboration with YASHADA​ ​has wasted Rs. 17 lakhs of public money because it has not turned out to be cost effective .Therefore, Major general (retd) SCN jatar and this writer from Pune have   requested Prime minister Narendra Modi to recover this money from the officials of CIC who approved this expenditure. 

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org/

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Full text of Former Inspector General S. M. Mushrif's report on Maharashtra Irrigation scam

Former Inspector general of police and then  deputy commissioner S.M.Mushrif had submitted a detailed report on corruption in irrigation department of Maharashtra. He had also requested his department to ask the government to give permission for an open enquiry into the affairs of MKVDC so that many more irregularities can be exposed and offences can be  registered against defaulting officers and office bearers of Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC).However, matter was discussed in assembly it was revealed that his report had  gone missing and then Anti-Corruption Bureau ( ACB) once again procured it from Mr.Mushrif. However, till today no action has been taken on his report.

Photo courtsey cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com

Irrigation scam started in Shive Sena BJP alliance government ( 1995 -1999) . And continued in all successive governments. The report given by Mr. Mushrif throws light on modus operandi of irrigation scammers. He has clearly mentioned names of business tycoon Avinash Bhosale and p. venku reddy. Here is full text of Mr.mushrif's report

1)Pre-qualification of contractors. 

This was just a ploy to reject the unwanted contractors. In fact, at the time of registration of contractors, their financial capability, technical manpower, machinery available (owned & hired), works of various types executed by them etc. are verified and on being fully satisfied on these counts, the contractors are registered. 

Then there is another stage, viz. enrolment of contractors, wherein based on their previous experience and categories of works executed by them, their select list is prepared for different types and scales of works. 

In view of the above two tests, there was no need to have another screening. But in MKVDC the third test i.e. pre-qualification of contractors was introduced. The contractors were not given blank tender forms unless they satisfy this condition. The lists of the prequalified contractors for a particular work were never published or displayed and rejected were informed about the reasons for rejection only after the last date of filing of the tender was over. Thus, this power was grossly misused by the senior officers of MVDVC. The favored ones were qualified even on the basis of forged document -s, and those having good reputation but not in the good books of the authorities or having no political connections were disqualified on flimsy grounds e.g. 

a) Bhom Balakwadi Project (Satara Dist.)  (estimated cost 100 crores).

One R.M.Mohite was a renowned contractor, but he was disqualified only to favour Pradhana constructions of P.Venku  Reddy of which Avinash Bhosale was also a partner But Shri Mohite filed a complaint and in verification,  the pradhana Constructions was found to have used other firm's documents as its own. It was such a serious mischief that the company should have been blacklisted but it was only disqualified for that work

b)Dhamani (Kolhapur district) (Estimated cost Rs 50 crores).

Here again, R.M.Mohite was disqualified to favor Uppar Constructions. Shri P.M.Mohite went to court and the court passed strictures against the method of prequalification. But Shri Mohite was politically pressurized to withdraw his claim to work

c)Temghar Project ( Pune District )  (Estimated cost 160 crores).

One Srinivas Company furnished forged documents for pre-qualification. They were challenged by another firm namely Progressive Company. But as Srinivas Company was a favorite of senior officers, it was not blacklisted or disqualified; but a compromise was brought about and the work was divided between the two. 

             (In this case the tender of the third company viz. National Project Constructors was not opened at all). 

d)Many contractors furnished false work-done certificates from Co-op. Sugar factories and got them prequalified But no verification was done by the MKVDC. Even the form No. 16 of income tax which mentions the tax deducted at source from the  bills and which was the sure evidence of actual work done was not insisted upon in case of favorite contractors, knowing fully well that the certificates were false or forged. 

e) One Shaktikumar Sancheti & Co. was disqualified for Jambhore project (Kolhapur), the estimated cost of which was Rs.40 crores. But as he had some political connection, he pressurized the authorities and a tender in the joint name of P.Venku Reddy and S.K.Sancheti Co. was accepted through the joint company was not prequalified. 

f)Kudal Dam project   ( 80 crores).

This work Was allotted to Pradhana Construction Co. of  Venku Reddy of which Avinash Bhosale is also a partner by  arbitrarily disqualifying other players. 

2)Manipulating publishing of tender notices,

In the first year of the MKVDC, the tender notices of the big and important works were being given in the important newspapers as required by Govt. directions. But the publishing of the notices were manipulated in a such a way that they got printed only in 10 to 15 issues of that news—paper and thus was known only to a few selected contractors who were sure to get some important work or the other in turn. As a result, other contractors remained in dark and there was no real competition and such tender of much high costs was accepted. But in a few months this secret leaked out and there were protests from other contractors. Therefore , this practice was discontinued and other methods were adopted to favor the coterie of contractors

3)Manipulation of work-completion period.

The contractor who completes the work within 70% of the period specified in the tender notice, gets 5% bonus of the tender cost. Therefore, in order to favor the contractors, much longer period than was actually required for a particular work was mentioned in the tender notice. As a result, many contractors could complete the work within 70% of the period and got the benefit of 5% bonus, which in some cases went in crores. This was naturally at the cost of the Corporation. It goes without saying that the Corporation's senior officers had fingers in this pie. 

4)Manipulation of estimates to much higher side.

Another method  to ensure the maximum  profit to favorite contractors was to raise the estimated cost of a  project very high (at times more than double) and manipulate the publishing of the tender notices in such a way that they reach only a selected few, out of which one was to be given  the work. 

The Bhama Askhed (Dist.pune)Project work, (estimated cost 38 crores) was to be allotted to P.Venku Reddy and everything was settled. But some other contractors which were not in the inner circle got this information and they  unexpectedly submitted tenders at very competitive rates. There was a tough competition and the tender of one D.G.Patil   & Co. which was 54% below the estimated cost was accepted. But even this reduced cost is said to be much higher compared  to the usual cost. 

5)Favoring some select group of contractors. 

a)Ujani canal work 83/84  km. of Solapur District (estimated cost Rs.3 crores) was given to P.Venku Reddy company without issuing any tender  notice. 

b)Km.92 Kudals canal (Satara T)ist.) (3 to 4 crores) was given to  Balaji Agency of one Sampat without issuing a tender notice. This work has not yet been regularized. 

c)The contract of Takari Pump (Sangli Dist.)Housework was allotted to Mule Brothers & Co. after accepting their tender. But the company wanted higher rates and wanted to back out. In such a case very heavy penalty is imposed on  the company concerned. But in this case contrary to the rules and the usual practice, Mule Brother's tender was withdrawn  without imposing any liability on the company. A fresh tender  notice was issued  and the tender of one progressive construction company which was acting as a proxy of Mule Brothers was accepted at much higher rate (about 3 to 4 crores). In reality, the work is being executed by Mule Brothers themselves. 

d)Tembhu Pipeline (250 to 300 crores).

Tenders were opened in line; but were taken to Mumbai under the pretext that the Secretary, Irrigation was holding the charge of the  Executive Director and without any deliberation, the decision was taken hurriedly  in a day, Avinash Bhosle acted as a go - between the Contractors on the one hand and the Corporation and the Govt. on the other. 

e)Nira - Deoghar (150 Crores).

The contract was given to a joint venture company  of which Avinash Bhosale wns a partner by disqualifying the other contractors and manipulating the tender notice only in  few issues of news-paper. 

f)Sina -Koregaon Tunnel (Solapur Dist.)

This work was also allotted to Avinash Bhosale but in somebody else's name. This can be established only by carefully  scrutinizing Avinash Bhosale's and his Company's  Income-tax records.

6)Huge Advances without observing any norms.  

Giving reasonable advances to contractors is a usual practice in some big and important projects. But in MKVDC, all norms and rules were thrown to the wind and advances were given very liberally at the interest of 22%. The contract of Wang Project (Satara Dist.) of which the estimated cost was Rs.80 crores was given to a person who was  politically very influential via Ms avalsekar of unity asian construction co. But even before a work order was issued, he was given a huge advance of Rs.13 crores. The contractor did not start the work for a year (From March97 to March 96)). nor did he return the amount. But on the other hand, he is requesting for the waiver of interest (to the tune of 3 crores) and it is learnt that the Corporation is also seriously considering his request. 

The main beneficiaries of the MKVDC are undoubtedly Shri P.Venku Reddy and Avinash Bhosale. They have virtually reaped the windfall with blessings of some big wigs in the corporation and the government. It is said that both have declared huge amount under the VDIS, but the major portion of the windfall is learnt to have been siphoned off to foreign countries by " Hawala" and other modes and both of them have acquired N.R.I status.P venku Reddy has already settled in London. He is learnt to have a luxurious flat in South London. and is planning to start a chemical factory in London. Shri Avinash Bhosale is trying to base in Dubai. He has been  frequenting Dubai under the garb of export of  readymade garments, but his long-term plan is to make a permanent base there. 

7)0ther irregularities

a)Market Missionaries Pvt.ltd.

This advertising company was engaged for the advertisement of the first two issues launched by the MKVDC, But the company was given an excess payment of 40 lakhs and nothing Was done to recover the same as the persons concerned are politically well connected. 

b)Purchase of Computers.  

The Corporation purchased computers worth Rs.2 crores. But in order to weed out other standard companies, an unreasonable condition of Works Contract Act Registration was put up and the computers were purchased from a non-descript company viz. Mechatronics , in spite of the fact that the N.I.C. had cautioned that the computers do not satisfy the specifications. 

Next year the prices of computers were reduced by 15% following the reduction in taxes, but again  the equal number of computers were purchased from the same company only, at 5% less price whereas about the same time Koyana Project had purchased computers at 15% less price

c)Purchase of Sumo vehicles.

Shri Ashok Patil, the then Chief Engineer, MKVDC purchased 50 Sumo vehicles for the Corporation in April 1996. Though the rate contract was fixed for these vehicles, Shri Patil purchased the vehicles from another trader at a price  higher than the rate-contract, thus incurring a loss- of several lakhs to the Corporation. 

Related Stories



Saturday, August 20, 2016

Former Union Minister for textile k. Sambasiva Rao booked along with 33 others in Temghar dam leakage case

It is now crystal clear that members of  all the major political parties are involved Temghar dam leakage case . Though former union minister of textiles  Kavuri Sambasiva Rao and 33 others have been booked,  It is alleged that  the company Soma Enterprises Limited that proudly received an award for excellence in Temghar masonry Dam award at the hands of Nationalist Congress Party Leader(NCP) and then irrigation minister Ajit Pawar has been being spared intentionally. Contractor, hotelier, and power-broker Avinash Bhosale, who has many political contacts is believed to be closely associated with Soma enterprises



Soma proudly announces that it has completed Temghar dam project but its name doesn't appear in FIR or any other report .Interestingly Ishwar chaudhari  Superintending Engineer of the Water Resources Department who hadn't mentioned names of soma enterprises and progressive construction in his technical paper submitted to the first dam safety conference held in Chennai in 2015 have been promoted to chief engineer immediately after FIR has been filed. Chaudhari had named only Srinivas constructions in his paper .And where about of Srinivas constructions are untraceable.

In Temghar Dam leakage case in Maharashtra, the Pune rural police have lodged a first information report against 25 government officials and nine people from two private firms (Progressive Constructions Ltd  and Srinivas Constructions)   for allegedly using substandard material and misappropriation of funds meant for construction work  at the Temghar Dam in Mulshi taluka of Pune district.The  case has been registered  under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 467 (forgery),468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Kavuri Sambasiva Rao was a contractor and owns Progressive Constructions, which has executed several mega infrastructure projects. The company has bagged multi-million rupees contracts from the governments. Rao was long time Indian National Congress ( INC)  associate and had joined Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. The World Bank has banned progressive Constructions for a period of 11 years( I.e up to 2024)  for fraudulent practices in execution of three road contracts of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), such sanctions when imposed do not allow the company and any legal entity involved with it to work on any of the contracts where World Bank is engaged .

All other agencies were supposed to take serious note of this development while awarding any contracts. However in India when a company is associated with the member of political party nothing matters. As well employees from around 10 banks had staged a protest in front of Progressive Constructions Limited (PCL) owned by Kavuri Sambasiva Rao alleging that the company has not repaid loans amounting to hundreds of crores.

Soma enterprises Ltd is another company involved in the Temghar Dam Leakage case.Office bearers of it being closely related to NCP and INC,it is obvious that its name doesn't figure in FIR because it . Soma belongs to Contractor, hotelier, and power-broker Avinash Bhosale. SOMA has completed Nira Deoghar Earth Dam, Prakash Barrage Project, Purna Project, Takari Pump House, Tarali Dam, Bhosa - Khind Tunnel and Approach Canal and Temghar Dam projects.And its ongoing projects Babhali Barrage , Dhapewada Barrage , Digras Barrage , R.C.C Dam across Vaitarna River and IV Mumbai Water Supply Project ( Mumbai Municipal corporation project where Shiv Sena BJP Rules).

Interestingly then BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis had  released portions of chitale committee appointed to investigate the irregularities in the state's irrigation projects. He had  put the onus on deputy CM Ajit Pawar and members of the governing council of the irrigation corporation for the irregularities in the state's irrigation projects. However now the way things are taking place it is hardly that anybody really involved in the irrigation scam or temghar leakage case will be brought to the justice.

The case has been registered against

Srinivas construction pvt ltd

1) V. D. Naidu
2) shree. D . nivas
3) smt D.laxmi kantamma
4) smt V Hema Malini
5) Venugopal Choudhary
6) shree T. V. rammaiyya
7)D Babu

Progressive construction pvt Ltd

8) K. Sambasiva Rao
9) M Rajendra prasad

Other officers related to work

10) R. V. Javdekar ( Executive engineer) 
11) C.S.deokar ( Executive engineer) 
12)S.L. Vaidya ( Executive engineer) 
13) A.S.More ( Executive engineer) 
14) D.S.Godse (sub-divisional engineer)
15) J.N.Lolap (sub-divisional engineer)
16) S.M.Patil (sub-divisional engineer)
17) R.B.Galiyal (sub-divisional engineer)
18) S.A.Pawar (sub-divisional engineer)
19)V.K.Lomate (branch engineer)
20) V.G.atre (branch engineer)
21) S.A.Tilekar (branch engineer)
22)V.G.Ganhawade (branch engineer)
23)B.M.Dhere (branch engineer)
24)V.R.Shinde (branch engineer)
25) R.R.Takwale (branch engineer)
26)T.A.Deshpande (branch engineer)
27)R.D.Patil (branch engineer)
29)S.D.Kokate (branch engineer)
30)A.V.Ghodake (branch engineer)
31) R.V. Pimlodkar (branch engineer)
32)J.Y.Suryavanshi (branch engineer)
33)S.K.Dhamankar (branch engineer)
34)A.G.Tantak (branch engineer)

Related Stories



Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Website – http://surajya.org/


Friday, August 19, 2016

Temghar dam leakages, who is really responsible poor construction quality and bad workmanship. ?

State Water Resources Minister Girish Mahajan on Thursday ordered to initiate action against contractors Shrinivas Construction and Progressive Construction for faulty work of the Temghar dam in Pune district.But  the  big question is why only these two companies are being held responsible for the leakages . Actually, there was one more company who had been awarded for excellence in the execution of Temghar Masonry Dam. The company was soma enterprises limited and an award  was given at the hands of  then Minister for  Irrigation Ajit Pawar .And interestingly nobody is mentioning its name in the entire episode. And that's why  it doesn't seem that real culprits will be taken to justice




Temghar dam has been leaking ever since it was first built. The special investigation team was also formed to investigate leakages in dam and team members had  passed hard strictures on the quality of execution, supervision and quality control aspects of Temghar dam. As well  Ishwar Chaudhari the then  Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Projects Circle, had submitted  a  technical paper in The first dam safety conference held in Chennai in 2015 . As per this paper,  the main cause of leakages in temghar Dam was poor construction quality and bad workmanship. He had also alleged that the  firm , Srinivas Constructions to whom  work had been allotted had executed it very badly. However, in his paper, Chaudhari had named only one firm Srinivas Constructions and there is no mention of progressive constructions or soma enterprises in his paper. Mega contractor-cum-builder Avinash Bhosale who has links with politicians was joint managing director of the soma enterprises.



In his technical paper Chaudhari has also alleged that 

1)Upstream surface undulations and uneven slopes speak of bad workmanship and cement slurry accumulated on the upstream surface, percolated from the shuttering for cold grout masonry reveal that cement grout is not able to occupy the space between the stones due to improper packing between the stages of masonry. Large cavities show the improper laying of stones.

2) From correspondence made by the supervisory staff to the contractor, it reveals that proper mixing equipment was not used for preparing cement grout. Single drum mixer was used instead of double drum mixer which is not able to create the colloidal state of the mix. Also, use of improper grading of artificial sand used seems to be responsible for forming a homogenous masonry. The leakages on downstream are prominent below RL 669 where cold grout masonry is provided. 

3)All these lacunae in the execution of cold grout masonry have defeated the purpose of providing it for imparting impermeability to the dam body.

4)There is a provision of stage wise grouting to be carried out before laying next season work. The stage grouting carried out may not have been done effectively to achieve the required impermeability. The field test results recorded at the time of construction shows the required impermeability results however the extent of leakages defies it totally. In situ masonry cores were not sent to MERI Nashik for permeability and strength test, which will reveal real status of strength and permeability parameters of the dam masonry.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) was also formed to investigate leakages in Dam . SIT members visited dam site twice and had  passed hard strictures on the quality of execution, supervision and quality control aspects of Temghar dam construction and proposed enquiry by a special squad and also recommended that remedial measures shall be carried out at the risk and cost of the contractor and due payments shall not be released to him.

However, the irrigation department time and again insists that despite the leakage, there was  no danger to the dam and no wastage of water. Construction work for the dam had begun in 1997. Till 2001,was finally completed in 2010. By 2006 itself, leaks had surfaced. While the irrigation department waited for the contractor to repair the leaks, nothing has been done so far. 

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Website – http://surajya.org/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14

Thursday, July 21, 2016

No options left, Ratnakar Gaikwad has to resign otherwise..

On the background of assurance given by  Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis  that a report on Ratnakar Gaikwad's role in the Ambedkar Bhavan demolition will be sent to the Governor and on  the background of surge of protest, an agitation and anger displayed by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's  disciples recently , it appears that  Chief State Information commissioner (CSIC) of Maharashtra has not left with any other option other than to resign .





Most irony part of the story is that Ratnakar Gaikwad himself has created the cause of action to remove himself from the post of CSIC under section 17 of RTI act. as per this section ,  Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the CSIC  or a State Information Commissioner ( SIC) can be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.




As per section 17(3) (e) of RTI act CSIC or SIC  can be removed If he has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner

And as per section 17(4) CSIC or SIC can be removed  if he, in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehavior.




In a present case, Ratnakar Gaikwad has not only taken an active part in the demolition of Ambedkar  Bhavan but also saw and defended the demolition of it  in the midnight openly.

While talking to Mumbai Mirror Gaikwad admitted  that he wasn't connected with the trust, and was merely "advising" the office bearers, like so many organizations and NGOs do, and I helped them." . But he was  seen on television giving the reason for demolition in the midnight. He said  earlier while structural audit there was a hugh protest and hence they had to demolish it in midnight. That definitely  wasn't just advice. It was active participation and "Interest in action".



Ratnakar Gaikwads behavior in Ambedkar Bhawan demolition case clearly shows that he had taken a lot of interest in. It was not just a passive advice, it was definitely an active participation falls under the section 17 of the RTI act. There may be counter arguments on whether  information commissioners while in office are allowed to give advice to NGO's or people. But definitely, they are not allowed to take an active part in any organizations matters directly or indirectly.

If Government reports Ratnakar Gaikawad's involvement in Ambedkar Bhawan  demolition case to the Governor, the Governor may start his removal procedure. And looking it to the increasing pressure on Government and assurance given by chief minister in assembly Government will definitely send such report. In that case, Governor as per section 17 (2) may suspend him from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during an inquiry. To avoid all this embarrassment Ratnakar Gaikwad has an option of  only to Resign immediately.

Subscribe for Free
To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Maharashtra Once again propose to amend Right To Information rules

The Government of Maharashtra is again trying to amend Right to information Rules. If these rules are implemented will be last straw on camel's back. Time being posting the text that I obtained from my sources .  Detailed post about implication of these rules will be posted tomorrow


Proposed Maharashtra Right to information Rules 2015

1.      Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2015.
(2)   They shall come into force on the -------------2015

2.      Definitions.-In the rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)   ‘Act’ means the Right to Information Act,2005(22 of 2005);
(b)   "First Appellate Authority" means an officer in the public authority who is senior in rank to the Public Information Officer and is so designated and notified by the public authority under section 19(1) of the Act.
(c)    Nodal Officer” means an Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary of the department, and not below the rank of Additional HoD in the case of attached or field Officers, designated  by the respective departments of the State Government for ensuring compliance with  section 4 of the Act.
(d)   “Public Information Officer” means an officer designated and notified as such by any public authority under section 5(1) of the Act and includes an Assistant Public Information Officer so designated or notified under section 5(2) of the Act. It also includes an officer from whom assistance has been sought under section 5(4) of the Act or to whom the application seeking information is transferred under section 6(3) of the Act. It further includes the head of the public authority in case no Public Information Officer is appointed or notified by such public authority;
(e)    “Registrar” means the Officer of the Commission of the level of Joint Secretary / Deputy Secretary to the State Government as may be designated by the SCIC.                       
(f)    Section’ means section of the Act;
(g)   “Subject” means a subject dealt with by the PIO concerned as an independent subject.????????
(h)   Words and expressions used in these rules but not defined shall have the same meanings respectively, assigned to them, in the Act.

3.      Procedure for seeking information.- (1) A request for obtaining information under sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be made to the concerned State Public Information Officer on plain paper in the format given in  the appendix as Form 1 and shall be accompanied by an application fee of rupees ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque payable to the public authority or by  affixing a court fee stamp or Indian postal order of rupees ten or through electronic payment gateway as prescribed by public authority (2) Any request for obtaining information under the Act should fulfill the following conditions:
(a)   the information sought should be a part of the record held by or under the control of the public authority concerned as envisaged under section 2 (f) of the Act and will not include information which will:
(i)    involve a fresh collection of non-available data; or compilation of existing data.
(ii)   require carrying out interpretation or analysis of existing data, or drawing of inferences based on existing data.
(iii) involve providing answers to hypothetical questions; or
(iv) be in the nature of seeking clarification, opinion or justification.
(v)   include information obtainable under existing law as per procedure prescribed by that law, provided the applicant establishes that he did not receive information despite recourse to that alternative remedy.
(vi) information which is already in the public domain under section 4(1)(b) or available to the general public to various publications.
(3)The applicant shall annex copies of relevant documents referred to in the RTI application.???
(4) The Public Information Officer shall enter the particulars of the Application in the Register maintained for the purpose in the format given in the appendix as Form 2.
(5) The PIO shall acknowledge the receipt of the application in Form 3 within 5 days from the date of receipt of application and intimate to him the availability of information or the fee required to be deposited for the same, or non-availability of the information sought or action taken under section 6(3) of the Act or time required to search/procure the relevant information.  (to be drafted)

(6) Where part of the information demanded is available with the PIO, the PIO shall furnish the same to the applicant an forward the application to the public authority with which rest of the information is concerned. Where the information demanded is available with more than one PIO in the same public authority, the public authority shall designate one of the PIOs as coordinating PIO for the purpose of section 7 of the Act. In case the information sought by the applicant is available with more than one public authority, the PIO shall inform in writing the applicant to approach the concerned authorities independently.


 (4) If the Public Information Officer finds that a request made for disclosure of information relates to another public authority or its subject matter is more closely related to another public authority, then such Public Information Officer shall, within five days from the date of receipt of the request, transfer the request or such part of it as may be appropriate, to the other public authority in the format given in the appendix as Form 3.

(6) The Public Information Officer on receipt of a request for information shall dispose of the request in accordance with the provisions of sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act.
If the Public Information Officer is of the view that the information sought is to be provided, then he shall convey the information to the applicant in the format given in the appendix as Form 4. The date on which the information is supplied shall be entered in the Register mentioned in sub-rule (2) above.
If the Public Information Officer is of the view that the information sought can only be provided on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information as prescribed in the U.P. Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, then he shall send intimation accordingly to the applicant in the format given in the appendix as Form 5 and enter the details in the Register mentioned in sub-rule (2) above.

(7) If the Public Information Officer is of the view that the request for information is to be rejected for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 or  9 of the Act, then he shall convey such rejection to the applicant in the format given in the appendix as Form 4. The date of rejection shall be entered in the Register mentioned in sub-rule (2) above.
(8) PIO shall maintain a Roznama  in Form 5

(4) Request relate only to single subject matter.– A request in writing for information under section 6 of the Act shall relate to one subject matter and it shall not ordinarily exceed one hundred and fifty words If an applicant wishes to seek information on more than one subject matter, he shall make separate applications:

Provided that, in case the request made relates to more than one subject matter, the Public Information Officer marshal respond to the request relating to the first subject matter only and may advise the applicant to make a separate application for each of the other subject matters.

4.      Fees: (1) For providing the information under sub-section(1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s cheque payable or by way of money order or Indian postal order to the public authority or through electronic payment gateway as prescribed by public authority  at the following rates, namely :
(A)
(a) when the concernedDepartment has already fixed   The price of some documents,maps,etc.


The Price sofixed plus postal charges.

(b) when the information is readily available, either by  way of photocopying or  by another way (copy)
(i) rupees two for each page(in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied plus postal charges ; or

(ii) actual charge or cost price of a copy in large size paper plus postal charges.

(B)
for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for the subsequent hour or fraction thereof thereafter:

Provided that no postal charges shall be charged if the applicant collects the information personally.

(2) For providing the information under sub-section (5) of section 7, the fee shall be charge by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or by way of money order payable to the public authority or Indian postal order  to the public authority or through electronic payment gateway as prescribed by public authority at the following rates:-

(a)   for information provided in diskette for floppy, rupees fifty per diskette or floppy, rupees fifty per diskette or floppy plus postal charges ; provided that no fee shall be charged if the information is supplied online electronically,  e.g. email.
(b)   for information provided in printed form at the price fixed for such publication or    rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication plus postal charges :
Provided that no postal charges shall be charged if the applicant collects the information personally.
( c) Subject to the provision of section 7(6), the information shall be provided  free of charge. For this purpose, the date of actual dispatch of intimation for payment of fees or actual information shall be considered.{Explanation : dispatch shall mean delivery of the letter to the relevant postal authority or the hand delivery to the applicant}



5.      Providing Information sought by person below poverty line

(1)   No fees and charges shall be payable by a person belonging to the Below Poverty Line families provided that such person encloses with the application, a certified copy of the Below Poverty Line Card or a certificate issued in that behalf by the concerned authority.
(2)   If the information sought relates to applicant himself/herself then the information will be provided in the form in which it is demanded.
(3)   If the information sought is not pertaining to self but if the information can be given in 50 pages (A4 size) or the cost of production of information is within Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred only) then the information sought will be provided in the form it is sought
(4)   If the information sought involves more than 50 pages or the cost of production exceeds Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred only) then by recording reasons under section 7(9) of the Act the applicant will be requested to inspect the records/files in the office in person.

6.      Applications for Samples or Inspection:

(1)   Where an application is made for taking a sample or inspecting a record or public works, the PIO shall intimate the date, time and venue when the applicant and in case of infirm or physically challenged persons, his/her authorized representative can obtain a sample or material or inspect information, record or work on submission of appropriate evidence regarding disability.

(2)   Procedure for seeking inspection of record.

(a)    If after having considered the application filed by the applicant for seeking inspection of record under sub-section (1) of section 6, the Public Information Officer find it appropriate, the applicant may be granted permission to inspect the record and if he grants such permission the Public Information Officer shall requisition the record desired by the applicant for perusal, from the concerned section of the Department and shall give the same to the applicant section of the Department and shall give the same to the applicant for inspection in his presence or in the presence of his authorized representative, during office hours.
(b)   The State Public Information Officer concerned shall have the right to fix the time and date of the inspection according to administrative convenience and his/her decision shall be final.
(c)    Subject to section 8 and 9 of the Act the PIO shall ensure that all the records sought by the applicant are made available for inspection at the time of inspection.
(d)   The State Public Information Officer concerned shall maintain the Roznama of time and date of inspection in the prescribed form.
(e)    While inspecting such record, the applicant shall be allowed to use pencil only and the information desired by the applicant shall be noted by him by pencil only and If the applicant brings any writing instruments other than a pencil, he shall deposit the same with the Public Information Officer and, thereafter, he shall be allowed to inspect the record.
(f)    The applicant shall not make any marking on the record by the pencil he is allowed to use during the inspection.During an inspection of documents or records, the applicant shall not cause any hindrance to the office work and shall cooperate with the staff and complete the inspection as soon as possible.

(3)   Procedure for seeking sample- The sample shall be provided to the applicant in the same manner and following the same procedure as followed generally by the public authority concerned and where such procedure is not laid down, as per the procedure adopted when the sample is taken by the relevant vigilance or investigation agency.

(4)   If the applicant desires to take copies of any parts of the records inspected by him or a sample of the work inspected by him, he/she may request the PIO in writing to provide such copies/samples. No application fee shall be required for such application.The PIO shall provide such copies/samples within 5 days, subject to payment of any fees for information.

7.      Maintenance of Record and suomoto disclosure under section 4

(1)   Every Government Department shall prescribe classification of all type of records and its mode of disposal, subject to the provision of Maharashtra Public Records  Act 2005.
(2)   Every public authority shall ensure that all their records are organized in accordance with the classification as mentioned in Rule 8(1) and are also duly computerized and e-accessible under the Act.  
(3)   Every public authority shall publish on the website or through booklets or information boards, the information prescribed in section 4(1)(b) of the Act and update it regularly and periodically.
(4)   Every Government Department shall designate a Nodal Officer at the departmental and the field level. (Explanation: Department shall mean the departments at the State Mantralaya level as defined by the Rules of Business of Government of Maharashtra.
(5)   The Nodal Officer shall be responsible to prescribe appropriate guidelines to the PA at different levels for classification and maintenance of records and its suomoto disclosure.
(6)   Every Government Department shall publish on its website the directory of the public authorities under its control, the PIOs, FAAs and the Nodal Officers.

8.      First Appeal
(1)     If any applicant does not receive the information or decision within the time limit specified in the act or if he is aggrieved by a decision of the Public Information Officer, such applicant may, within thirty days thereof, file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority in Form No. _____6____, accompanied with a fee of Rs. 20/- payable in cash, money order, pay order, Demand Draft or Court  fee stamp or Indian postal order  to the public authority or through electronic payment gateway as prescribed by public authority
(2)     An appeal application shall mention the name and address of the appellant, name, and designation of the Public Information Officer and the reason of filing the appeal such as refusal to give information or disclosure of incomplete or misleading information or an order relating to payment of excessive fees or non-disclosure of information within the specified time limit.

(3)     The First Appeal Application shall be accompanied by the copies of the RTI application along with annexures submitted to the PIO, decision or reply of the PIO. In case no reply was received from the PIO, a specific mention thereof shall be made in the appeal application.
(4)     The First Appellate Authority shall maintain a register of first appeal applications in Form7.The First Appellate Authority shall fix the date, time & place of hearing and give a notice of at least seven days to appellant, the Public Information Officer, and a third party if any, for the purpose of hearing the appeal. A Roznama shall be maintained by the FAA in the Form 8.

(5)     The first appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 19(1). The FAA shall pass a speaking order with reasons thereof recorded in writing.

(6)     A copy of the order passed on the appeal will be provided free of cost to the appellant and PIO concerned.

(7)     The First Appellate Authority shall ensure the compliance of its orders by the PIO concerned.

9.      Second Appeal
(1)     An applicant who is not satisfied by the decision of the First Appellate Authority or where no such decision has been communicated within the time limit prescribed by the Act,may prefer second appeal to the State Information Commission within 90 days from the date of such decision, in Form 9 Such appeal shall be filed before the concerned Bench of the Commission in whose jurisdiction the office of the PIO is located.
(2)     The Second Appeal Application  shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees twenty by way of cash against proper receipt, or by demand draft or banker’s cheque payable to the State Information Commission or by affixing a court fee stamp of rupees twenty or Indian postal order  to the public authority or through electronic payment gateway as prescribed by public authority, and shall be accompanied by the following documents, duly authenticated an verified by the appellant, namely:-
(i)    a copy of the application along with annexures submitted to the PublicInformation Officer;
(ii)   a copy of the reply or decision received, if any, from the Public Information Officer;
(iii) a copy of the appeal made to the First Appellate Authority;
(iv) a copy of the Order received if any, from the First Appellate Authority; or in case no order was received from the First Appellate Authority, a mention thereof.
(v)   copies of other documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in his appeal;
and
(vi) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.

(3)     The Appellant shall cause to serve a copy of the Second Appeal Application with annexures to the PIO, FAA and Third Party if any and submit a declaration to that effect to the Commission at the time of filing of Second Appeal.
(4)     The State Information Commission shall maintain a register of appeals received in Form10. The Commission shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the FAA and the Public Information Officer as the case may be, and third party if any. The State Information Commission shall give a notice of at least seven days to the parties for the purpose of hearing of the appeal.


10.  Rules governing registration and disposal of complaints

(1) Any person may file a complaint with the Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Act.

(2) A complaint should be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and should be filed in three copies. A complaint should be submitted in the format given in the appendix as Form 11and should contain the following details:


(3) All necessary documents in support of the complaint should be annexed to the complaint.

(4) The Commission shall maintain the register in Form  12.

(5) The complainant shall cause to serve a copy of the complaint application with annexures to the Public Authority or FAA or Public Information Officer concerned as the case may beand submit a declaration to that effect to the Commission at the time of filing of complaint.

(6) The Commission shall issue notices to the complainant and the Public Authority or FAA or Public Information Officer concerned as the case may be at least 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing. A copy of the complaint will also be sent to the Public Information Officer directing him to submit his written statement in two copies by the date fixed and directly cause a copy of the same to be served on the complainant.

(7) On the date of hearing of the complaint, after consideration of the contents of the complaint, the written statement of the Public Authority or FAA or Public Information Officer concerned as the case may be and the submission made by the parties at the hearing, the Commission may issue appropriate orders to Public Authority or FAA or Public Information Officer concerned to comply with provisions of the Act or order further enquiry if necessary or dispose of the complaint as the case may be.

11.  Records Management

1)      The Public Information Officer shall maintain the record in Register in Form _A__ in respect of the applications received for information and the fees collected for giving the information.

2)      The Public Information Officer shall maintain the record in Register in Form __B__ in respect of inspection of record/work allowed in Form ___ and details of the application and Inspection shall be recorded therein.

3)      The First Appellate Authority shall maintain the record in Register in Form _C__ in respect of the first appeals filed and their disposal.

4)      The record of applications, appeals and complaints shall be retained for one year after its disposal in case where further appeals are not pending. The Register of Application and Appeals shall be retained for 5 years.


12. Monitoring and Reporting ????????????????????????

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis


RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.


RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Website – http://surajya.org/