Dewan Housing Finance received a loan of $85 million from the member of World Bank to offer housing finance to low and middle income customers
Dewan Housing Finance Corp Ltd (DHFL) said it received a loan of $85 million loan from IFC, a member of the World Bank Group to expand the company's lending for affordable and energy-efficient housing in India.
The loan is being given with the support of the government of Canada, DHFL said in a release.
“While housing finance is one of the lowest risk asset classes in India, financial institutions have so far shown limited interest in the low income segment. IFC’s investment will demonstrate the viability of offering housing finance to low and middle income clients,” said Kapil Wadhawan, chairman and managing director, DHFL.
Of the total loan, IFC will provide $70 million through external commercial borrowing (ECB). IFC has committed an additional $15 million to finance green mortgages under the IFC-Canada Climate Change Program.
The terms of the loan include tenure of eight years on both tranches of the loan. DHFL has obtained a moratorium of two and three years, respectively on the two tranches of $70 million & $15 million, following which repayments will commence.
The loan to DHFL, to be used for green mortgages, will reduce 6,200 tons of carbon emissions per year.
The housing finance market in India has a huge gap to fill. According to India’s Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017), the housing shortage in the country is estimated at 58.8 million units. Over 90 percent of this demand is from low-income households, especially the under-served segments.
The Indian government’s resolution on formation of CBI has been held valid by the Supreme Court time and again in a number of judgements
A day after the Guwahati High Court order held as unconstitutional the setting up of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the union government on Friday said it will appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court.
“...The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) intends to file an appeal. So an appeal will be filed against the order (in the Supreme Court),” Law Minister Kapil Sibal told reporters.
DoPT is the administrative ministry for CBI. Sibal said DoPT has discussed the issue with him and it was decided to file an appeal.
In a curious judgement, the Guwahati High Court had on Thursday struck down the resolution through which the CBI was set up and held all its actions as “unconstitutional”.
The judgement by the division bench comprising Justices IA Ansari and Indira Shah came on a writ petition filed by one Navendra Kumar challenging an order by a single judge of the High Court in 2007 on the resolution through which the CBI was set up.
Earlier in the day, minister of state for personnel V Narayanasamy met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apparently to discuss the fallout of the verdict.
“The judgement is patently wrong. It is bound to be set aside. We are certainly going to challenge it and the appeal is likely to be filed in the Supreme Court latest by Monday,” Additional Solicitor-General PP Malhotra had told PTI. He had appeared before the HC in the case.
The CIC directed the deemed PIO to file an affidavit stating that there was no imminent danger to the appellant's building after inspecting the site. This is the 190th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application
The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the office of superintending engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), to submit an affidavit stating that there was no imminent danger to the appellant's building.
While giving the judgement on 7 August 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, "MK Singhla, the deemed PIO will file an affidavit stating that there was no imminent danger to the appellant's building after inspecting the site and send it to the appellant and a copy to the Commission before 20 August 2009."
New Delhi resident, Pushpa Rani, on 3 September 2008, sought from the PIO information regarding the status of her complaints which she had written to the several authorities on different dates, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. She had complained about a building in her neighbour, which was in dangerous state and also affecting her building.
In his reply the PIO stated that letters which she wrote to the deputy commissioner on 3 March 2004, 25 October 2004, 23 November 2004 and 14 February 2007 had been forwarded to the EE (MS-I) vide no. 95/RTI/EE-MS-II dated 4 September 2008 and the information related to the letters written to the ACP, SHO and DCP could be obtained from the concerned department of Delhi Police. He further wrote that the house in question was examined in the presence of the Appellant and the concerned JE, AE & EE (MS-II) and it was found that there was no imminent danger to the Appellant's house. However another letter was received from the Appellant which was again sent to the EE (Bldg.)-I, South Zone on 9 September 2008 for further action as per DMC act.
Citing non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time, Rani filed her first appeal. However, there was no mention of any order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Rani, the appellant, then approached the CIC with her second appeal.
During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted that the appellant has a building on which the building next to it is actually leaning as per the photographs shown by Rani. The photographs appear to shows cracks in the upper part of her building and to any rational person this would appear a very dangerous and unsafe situation which could lead to loss of lives, he observed.
In the information provided, the PIO stated, "After examining the house no.694, it is observed that there is no imminent danger to house no.680 (of the appellant)".
The Bench asked the PIO if the MCD had done any evaluation or calculation based on which the statement was made.
Rani, the appellant also produced before the Bench a file notings of 19 September 2008 from the building department of the MCD in which it was stated, "In view of above works department be directed to take action against this building before any mishappening occurred".
Mr Gandhi noted that nine months after the above said note was made, the PIO and executive engineer MK Singhla, a civil engineer, stated that there was no imminent danger to the appellant's building. He stated that he was willing to provide an affidavit of the same effect.
While allowing the appeal, the Bench directed Singhla, the deemed PIO to file an affidavit stating that there was no imminent danger to the appellant's building after inspecting the site and send it to the appellant and a copy to the CIC before 20 August 2009.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001664/4381
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001664
Appellant : Pushpa Rani
Respondent : Maneesh Rastogi
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Suptdg Engineer-I,
South Zone, Green Park,