One of the less expensive stocks in the market today
It is hard to find bargain stocks...
The CIC directed the PIO under the office of the Superintending Engineer (HQ), at the MCD, to provide specific information asked by the appellant about mobile towers in the capital. This is the 149th 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) in the office of Superintending Engineer (HQ), at Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), to provide specific information asked by the appellant about mobile towers and also display the same on MCD website as per requirement of Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
While giving this judgement on 12 February 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “The APIO Harminder Singh, executive engineer-EE (building-HQ) is directed to provide the information to the appellant and also to ensure that the information is displayed on the website before 5 March 2010.”
Delhi resident Karam Chand, on 10 June 2009, sought information about mobile towers in the city from the PIO. Here is the information he sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act...
Chand sought information on 20 points regarding total number of cellular towers, poles and cellular antennae in all zones (12 in number) of MCD. As per agreement with companies, he sought information in tabular form under column heading of company name, permission apply date, file number and date of permission. Chand also sought information in tabular form with column heading of company name, towers, poles antenna, permission apply date, file number, date of performance, name of RWA and its registration number, pollution certificate number, number of ATM towers, poles and antenna and dish (ATM) used as commercial. He also asked for information with details of postal address, towers, poles or antenna, bank name in similar table.
In his reply, the PIO stated...
For query 1 to 3- Information sought vide this point is to be provided by the PIOs of different zones, to whom the RTI Application has already been transferred vide this official letter dated 19 June 2009.
Query 4-The information sought vide this point is not an information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Query 5-As per point No. 1 above.
Query 6- The information sought vide this point is not an information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Query 7- As per point no. 1 above.
Query 8- The information sought vide this point is not an information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Query 9 (a to d)- As per point no. 1 above.
Query 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18 19 -The information sought vide this points pertains to PIO, CL Zone to who the ID Application has already been transferred.
Query 20- The information sought vide this point is not an information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO, the applicant filed his first appeal. In his order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated, "Information pertaining to the issue of head quarter (HQ) had been replied vide letter dated 2 July 2009 and the other issues pertaining to different PIOs had been transferred to the respective PIO for providing information to the Appellant."
Chand insisted that consolidated information as per the CIC decision should have to be provided by one PIO. The FAA then directed the PIO of HQ to obtain information from the PIOs concerned and provide the same to the Appellant within two weeks’ time.
Despite the order from the FAA, the PIO of HQ did not provide the information. Chand then approached the CIC with his second appeal.
During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that Chand, the appellant, sought various information on the topic of mobile towers and extensive information has been provided (by the PIO) as well as numerous file inspections had also been done by him. Chand then sought specific information on four points:-
1. Total number of towers for which MCD has given sanction in various zones indicating the company which has put up the tower, address of the location and fees paid, if any.
2. Total number of towers setup without permission, with their addresses, indicating the name of the company which has put up the tower and action initiated against them, if any.
3. Copy of the guidelines for giving permission for installation of towers.
4. Any action that has been taken against officers in areas where towers have come up without permission. Copies evidencing such actions are sought. If no action has been taken this should be stated.
While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi directed the PIO to provide information mentioned above to Chand before 5 March 2010. The PIO was also directed to ensure that the information is also displayed on the website of MCD before 5 March 2010.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003152/6809
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003152
Appellant : Karam Chand,
Respondent : RK Sharma
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer (Bldg.)
O/o the Superintending Engineer (HQ),
Municipal Corp of Delhi Town Hall, New Delhi-110006
Stories of price manipulation
Integra Capital Management (Rs15)
Integra Capital Management is categorised as a ‘B’ group NBFC and is supposedly into leasing, hire purchase and ‘wealth management’. According to its 2012 annual report, the company did not undertake a single hire purchase or leasing transaction nor did it earn any revenues from consulting and advisory services. Instead, it has invested nearly Rs2 crore in mutual funds, mostly in fixed maturity plans. The company has just two employees on its payroll. In the past, the company had flouted BSE’s disclosure norms. The company’s fundamentals are a joke. It has earned marginal revenues in the past seven quarters and has incurred losses in six out of the seven quarters, with a total net loss during the preceding seven quarters amounting to Rs47 lakh. Yet, the share price of the company has ballooned 265%, from Rs4.11 to Rs15 between 6 June 2012 and 18 July 2013. As on 31 March 2013, the promoters hold 75% of the company’s equity while the retail shareholders hold 25%.
Despite spending over crores of rupees on detecting price rigging, neither SEBI nor the BSE have noticed this blatant case of price manipulation.