Central Information Commission
Suresh Chandra Jain vs Department Of Social Welfare Gnct Of ... on 27 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No. CIC/COPSO/A/2016/297904/DSWGS
Date of Hearing : 07.09.2017
Date of Decision : 16.10.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain
Respondent : PIO
O/o the Registrar Cooperative
Societies
GNCTD
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.05.2016
PIO replied on : 30.05.2016
First Appeal filed on : 17.06.2016
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 10.08.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 10.05.2016, the appellant sought action taken on his letter dated 21.03.2016 seeking cancellation of certificate issued by Assistant Collector Gr-1 vide letter dated 25.05.2008 in favour of DCHFC, against Pharmaceutical Employees CGHS Ltd. Appellant also sought details of action taken on letter dated 18.06.2013 for declaring the mortgage deed illegal and invalid executed by erstwhile officers of the Managing Committee of Pharmaceutical Employees CGHS Ltd. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.05.2016 stated that no such action can be taken at Administrative level.
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not adjudicate in the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both are present. The Appellant states that vague reply was given. He states to have written two letters to RCS. The Appellant draws attention of the Commission towards the contents of one of his representations addressed to the Registrar of Societies, wherein certain allegations of impropriety against the Managing Committee of CGHS & RCS office. The same reads as:Page 1 of 5
The following facts are submitted for you kind perusal, information and necessary action.
1) That pharmaceutical employees CGHS Ltd. borrowed a sum of Rs 1.65 crores from DCHFC for Construction of 300 flats on behalf of 228 members. 72 members did not avail any loan.
(2) That the loanee members paid their loan instalments to the society and the society was to remit the same To DCWC (3). That the managing committee did not deposit the loan instalment paid by loanee members to DCHFC and misused mismanaged, embezzled, misappropriated and diverted the money to other heads and went into default.
(4) That the DCHFC went into arbitration against the society and loanee members and also in appeal in Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the society to pay the money of the claim to DCHFC.
(5) That the DCHFC filed a recovery case against the society and the Asstt. Collector Grade I, office of the Registrar, Cooperative societies Issued a certificate of recovery m favour of DCHFC for Rs. 1,34,79, 105/= as calculated by DCHFC on 26/05/2008.
(6) That the Asstt. Collector Grade I, office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, issued the certificate without checking and reconciliation of accounts of DCHFC believing it to be true.
(7) That there is a huge scandal in the accounts of DCHFC. There are mistakes In the calculation of interest in the quarterly demands issued by DCHFC. They have also used two different methods of calculation of interest. One method of calculation in upto 30/6/2011 and mother after 30/6/2011. It has made a lot of difference in arriving at the amount payable by the society.
(8) It has been held by Hon Supreme court of India in the case of central bank of India V/s Ravindra and others 2002 SC C(l) 367 and as per section 19(20) of RDDBFI act 1933, Award of interest payable from the date on or before which payment is found due meaning there by present pondentelite and future interest 5s discretion with court. The DCHFC has capitalised the penal interest and other dues.
Page 2 of 59. The Hon. Supreme court of India in Special leave petition, (c) No, 2421/1993. CA No. 3964/1922, CA No. 3957/1997, SLP (c) No. 3954/1994, SLP(c) No. 9082/1995, etc. Also held that capitalization of penal interest is not allowed.
(10) Copy of demand notes dated 30/6/1991, 9/91,12/91,3/92,6/92, 9/92, 12/92, 3/93,6/13 shows that there is mistake is calculation of interest and penal interest has been capitalized upto 30/6H 1. And also demand notes dated 30/9/2011, 12/201.1,3/12 and 9/12 show that interest on arrears and penal interest has been charged separately. This clearly indicates that DCHFC has used two softwares in computer for calculating interest one upto 30/6/1 1 and another after 30/6/1. 1. This has made a difference of lakhs of rupees in the amount to be paid to DCHFC.
11. When this anomaly was found the matter was handed over to a chartered accountant firm M/s PAN and co. to arrive at the correct amount payable to DCHFC. They after taking into consideration the loan agreement quarterly demand notes, and ledger Accounts provided by DCHFC arrived at a conclusion that the whole loan of DCHFC was paid upto 30-6-2012. The outstanding loan amount of 30-6-12 was Nil. The society paid Rs 1,56,15712 from 1-7-12 to 28/7/15 to DCHFC was paid m excess. DCHFC should refund U-sis amount to society with upto date interest which comes to the tune of Rs 2 crores.
12. The DCHFC not only capitalized &e penal interest but also GJ.P. and P.I.P. It has not followed any transparent method to adjust penal interest G.I.P. and P.I.P. from the amount paid society a particular quarter.
13. Copies of demands noted quoted above (13) and report of CA with detailed calculation is attached herewith (13 pages).
It is, therefore, requested that in the light of above revelation the certificate issued by the Asstt. Collector Grade I office of the Registrar Cooperative societies be cancelled and the DCHFC be directed to refund the excess amount paid by society.
Further a through enquiry be ordered in the accounting procedure of DCHFC as this is not only the ewe' of Pharmaceutical Employees CGHS I.P. Extension Delhi 92 but also of 36 other societies against whom the recover proceedings are going on and several other individual borrowers who are also sailing in the same boat.
Page 3 of 5Per contra, the PIO reiterates the reply already furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the appellant has sought action taken report on two of his applications sent to Registrar Cooperative Societies on 21.03.2016 and 18.06.2013. The first application gave the background and the justification for cancellation of certificate issued by Assistant Collection Gr. I vide his letter No. 97/AR/3W/893 dated 25.05.2008 in favour of Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation. The respondent has not given any information as to how this application was processed but merely given a cryptic reply. The second application was for declaring mortgage deed illegal and invalid, executed by erstwhile officers of the Management Committee for Pharmaceutical employees CGHS Ltd. There is again no meaningful reply given to this query.
It is unfortunate that the FAA did not hold a hearing and as a result such cases continue to come to the Commission. Time and again the Commission has been commenting on the role of the First Appellate Authority which chooses to either abdicate its role or does perfunctory hearings. The Registrar Cooperative Societies needs to look into this aspect seriously and take necessary action.
The Commission directs the PIO to provide an action taken report on both the representations made by the appellant along with the copies of file notings made in the course of processing the same. The above information shall be furnished to the appellant within three weeks of the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 4 of 5 Copy to:-Page 5 of 5