Central Information Commission
Sundaresan vs North Eastern Regional Agricultural ... on 31 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NRAMC/A/2022/659246
Sundaresan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
North Eastern Regional Agricultural
Marketing Corporation Ltd. 9, Rajbari
Path, Ganeshguri, Guwahati -781005 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2024
Date of Decision : 31.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.07.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 05.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's : Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2022seeking the following information:
1.1) information one; the President of India owns almost 100% shares of the company-who was authorized to attend the AGMs and adjourned AGMS Page 1 of 8 of NERAMAC for 1988-89, 1989-90, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019 20, 2020 21-names, designations and official addresses and the AGMs/adjourned AGMs for which he was appointed.
1.2) information two; who were at the relevant points of time when the AGM/ Adjourned AGMS were held shareholders of the company, names and designations and addresses.
1.3) information three; was the authority for each said AGM for each said year granted to the said representative of President to attend and vote in a particular manner as explained below or the authorized representative merely authorized to vote at his discretion or were some instructions given to him.
1.4) Information four; did the said authorized representatives or said members or their proxies attend the following AGMs or adjourned AGMs whose agenda included approval of accounts, audit reports, CAG reports, Board Reports ;( names, designations, official addresses) - and those who voted in favour and those voted against and those abstained.
1988 89, 1989-90, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014 15.
2015-16, 2016-17, .
2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020 21 Page 2 of 8 1.5) information five; were the accounts, audit reports, CAG reports, Board Reports etc. approved at the said AGMs/adjourned AGMs (pls state for each such year as stated at para 1.4).
1.6) information six; did the authorized representative and others voted in favour or against on the said matter (approval of accounts, audit reports, CAG reports, Board Reports (pls state for each such year as stated at para 1.4)-state separately for each for each year.
1.7) information seven; did the authorized representative act in accordance with the mandate granted to him in each of those years.
1.8) information eight; the accounts for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014 15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019 20, 2020-21 would be first placed before and audit committee prior to placing before Board for approval - the dates on which they were so placed and approved who attended those meetings (names, designations, addresses, appointing/nominating authority), who voted in favour, who voted against and who abstained and who dissented.
1.9) information nine; the Board Reports for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2015 16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 at least in so far as explanations of Board on remarks of auditors, on approval of Directors Responsibility Statement, on state of affairs post date of Balance Sheet and date of Board Report, other matters relating to accounts and state of affairs in Board Report would be first placed before and audit committee prior to placing before Board for approval - the dates on which they were so placed and approved, who attended those meetings ( names, designations, addresses, appointing/nominating authority), who voted in favour, who voted against and who abstained and who dissented.
1.10) Information ten; the accounts and Board Reports for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019 20, 2020-21 would be placed before Board for approval - the dates on which they were so placed and approved, who attended those meetings (names, designations, addresses appointing/nominating authority), who voted in favour, who voted against and who abstained and who dissented.
1.11) information eleven; for placing the said accounts, Board Report, CAG report etc at the AGM s ,a notice for AGM and adjourned AGMs will have to be issued for the said AGMs / adjourned AGMs which will need prior Board approval - names, designations, addresses appointing/nominating Page 3 of 8 authority of those who voted in favour, voted against, remained neutral and dissented.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2022. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Rai, Company Secretary & CPIO appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the replies given by the respondent as desired information was not provided.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that inadvertently RTI application could not be replied and they apologized for the same. They further submitted that after receipt of hearing notice they had provided revised point-wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 20.05.2024 which is reproduced as under:
"Sub: Revised Reply to RTI Application no. NRAMC/R/E/22/00001 dated 24.07.2022.
Information sought under your abovementioned RTI application is not clear, however please find below, the point wise reply based on our reading and information available in the records of NERAMAC:
1. Reply to point no. 1.1: Name of the authorized representative who has attended the AGM/Adjourned AGM on behalf of the President of India for the FY as mentioned in your application is enclosed as Annexure-l.
2. Reply to point no. 1.2: Shareholder of the Company at the relevant point of time are the President of India, the Secretary NEC and the Deputy Secretary NEC.Page 4 of 8
3. Reply to point no. 1.3: The authorized representative participated in the AGM pursuant to section 112 of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Reply to point no. 1.4, 1.5 &1.6: Information furnished under Annexure-l
5. Reply to point no. 1.7: The Authorized Representatives acted in accordance with the provisions of section 112 of the Companies Act 2013.
6. Reply to point no. 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 & 1.11: Information furnished under Annexure-"
In addition to the above, the respondent had filed detailed written submission dated 20.05.2024 stating complete facts of the case which is reproduced as under:
"1. That the Appellant (T.V. Sundaresan) filed number of RTI applications to NERAMAC and also through various Public Authorities of Govt. of India transferred to NERAMAC. The information sought in all the applications are largely similar in nature and often lack clarity, ambiguous and it is more of an observation (s) alleging that NERAMAC has perpetuated fraud without seeking specific Information.
2. That the NERAMAC replied to all the RTI Applications received from the applicant or transferred from other Public Authorities concerning the applicant to the best of its understanding and supplied vintage documents pertaining to 1980s and 1990s as available in the records.
3. Further, it is worthwhile to mention that, the Appellant is a former employee of NERAMAC.As per records, he served as Financial Advisor cum Company Secretary (Acting) in NERAMAC during FY 1989-90. It has been observed that, since 2017, he is filing frequent RTI Applications to NERAMAC and other Public Authorities, raising complaints against NERAMAC rather than seeking information (as mentioned earlier). His voluminous RTI applications on many occasions largely contain matters which are either not related to NERAMAC or infructuous.
4. However, it has been observed that frequently his applications are related to seeking Annual Reports/Directors Reports/Audit Reports and minutes of the General Meetings/Board of Directors meetings. In this respect, it submitted that, NERAMAC has already furnished the copy of Annual Reports from FY 1983-84 to FY 2009-10 (laid in the Parliament) Page 5 of 8 towards reply to the forwarded RTI Appeal no. LOKSS/A/2018/60173 dated 27.10.2018 vide our reply ADMN/179/RTI/Pt-II/- 1177 dated 31.12.2018. Whereas copies of Annual Report for the FY 2007-08 to FY 2014-15 vide letter no. ADMN/179/RTI/Pt-II/958 dated 16.11.2018. Whereas, Minutes of AGM for FY 1989-90 to FY 2014-15 (Excluding for FY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14) vide reply ADMN/179/RTI/Pt-II/958 dated 16.11.2018. All these documents are furnished to the applicant free of cost.
5. Annual Report of NERAMAC inter-alia comprises Directors' Report, Audit Report of the Statutory Auditors, C&AG Comments and the Audited Financial Statement and made public after its approval and adaption by the Shareholders and laying in the Houses of Parliament. All the approved copy of Annual Reports of NERAMAC are available on the website of NERAMAC at https://neramac.com/annual-report for public viewing. The same has also repeatedly been informed to the appellant.
6. In respect to the RTI application under appeal, NERAMAC has replied the application over RTI MIS Portal. However, on further scrutiny of the documents available in records, a revised point-wise reply has been furnished to the appellant on 20.05.2024 vide letter no. ADMN/RTI FILE/Part-IV-166 through post vide receipt no. ES042927847IN.
Copy of Revised Reply attached for your kind reference.
7. PRAYER:
That the information sought by the applicant has been furnished to the best of his satisfaction as per the available records. Whereas, appellant repeated RTI Applications are more of complaint applications even containing irrelevant and hypothetical facts of conspiracies and involvement in fraud not covered under the definition of "Information" as defined RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, considering the above facts, the appeal of the appellant should not be entertained and be disposed of please."
On a query from the Commission, the Respondent informed that the Appellant Shri Sundaresan is a former employee of NERAMAC which also is a Public Authority wherein, his designation at the time of retirement was Financial Page 6 of 8 Advisor and he also had charge of Company Secretary but did not possess the qualification of a Company Secretary.
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that no reply has been given by the respondent within the stipulated time in this case. The respondent during the hearing submitted that inadvertently reply was not sent to the appellant within the stipulated time and tendered sincere apology for the same. They further submitted that after receipt of hearing notice, they had provided updated point-wise information/reply to the appellant as per the records available with them, vide letter dated 20.05.2024, copy of the same is placed on record.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and intervention of the Commission is not required in this matter. However, the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI application and such lapses should not recur in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, North Eastern Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Ltd. 9, Rajbari Path, Ganeshguri, Guwahati - 781005 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)