Nifty strengthened above yesterday’s low and closed, up 1.50%, the maximum one-day percentage gain since 29 November 2012. The index may move up to 5,900, subject to dips
The market, which was in the positive since the opening bell, settled near its highs on supportive global cues. The Nifty strengthened above yesterday’s low and closed up 1.50%, the maximum one-day percentage gain since 29 November 2012. The index may move up to 5,900, subject to dips.
The market opened on a firm note on supportive global cues. The US markets closed in the positive overnight on buying in late trade. Markets in Asia were higher in morning trade as Chinese officials reiterated the need to enhance fiscal spending to in order to boost economic growth to 7.5% this year.
The Nifty opened 23 points up at 5,722 and the Sensex resumed trade at 18,944, a rise of 66 points over its previous close. The opening figures on the Nifty and the Sensex were also their intraday lows.
Buying in realty, metal, auto and banking sectors kept the momentum steady till mid-morning trade. However, the benchmarks pared a small part of their gains on selling pressure. But the market overcame the minor hiccup and continued its northward journey in noon trade.
A positive opening of the key European bourses saw the local benchmarks strengthening further in post-noon trade. The gains resulted in all sectoral indices trading higher.
The market hit their intraday highs towards the end of the trading session with the Nifty almost touching the 5,800-mark at 5,790 and the Sensex climbing to 19,164.
The market settled near the highs of the day with the Nifty gaining 86 points (1.50%) at 5,784 and the Sensex jumped 265 points (1.40%) to finish the session at 19,143.
Among the broader indices, the BSE Mid-cap index surged 1.66% and the BSE Small-cap index climbed 1.11%.
All sectoral indices closed in the positive. The top gainers were BSE Realty (up 3.13%); BSE Metal (up 2.65%); BSE Bankex (up 1.89%); BSE Auto (up 1.78%) and BSE Oil & Gas (up 1.54%).
Twenty six of the 30 stocks on the Sensex closed in the positive. The main gainers were Sterlite Industries (up 4.47%); Hindalco Industries (up 4.29%); Tata Motors (up 3.73%); ICICI Bank (up3.36%) and Wipro (up 3.30%). Bajaj Auto (down 0.64%); BHEL (down 0.63%); ITC (down 0.26%) and NTPC (down 0.10%) emerged as losers on the benchmark.
The top two A Group gainers on the BSE were—Essar Oil (up 20.96%) and Adani Ports & Special Economic Zone (up 7.13%).
The top two A Group losers on the BSE were—MMTC (down 8.07%) and AstraZeneca Pharma India (down 3.38%).
The top two B Group gainers on the BSE were—Wheels India (up 20%) and La Opala RG (up 19.99%).
The top two B Group losers on the BSE were—Readymade Steel India (down 19.96%) and Ashika Credit Capital (down 19.96%).
Of the 50 stocks on the Nifty, 43 ended in the green. The key gainers were Sesa Goa (up 5.27%); Hindalco Ind (up 4.72%); HCL Technologies (up 4.28%); Ambuja Cements (up 4.25%) and Tata Motors (up 4.09%). The main losers were Bajaj Auto (down 1.22%); BHEL (down 0.67%); NTPC (down 0.23%); HDFC (down 0.05%) and Kotak Mahindra Bank (down 0.01%).
Markets in Asia, barring the Jakarta Composite index, closed higher on reports that the Chinese policymakers would maintain its GDP growth target of 7.5% as the government would initiate measures to spur consumer spending. News that the US Federal Reserve would continue with its bond buying programme also supported the gains.
The Shanghai Composite jumped 2.33%; the Hang Seng added 0.10%; the KLSE Composite gained 0.37%; the Nikkei 225 advanced 0.27%; the Straits Times climbed 0.26%; the Seoul Composite rose 0.17% and the Taiwan Weighted settled 0.835 up. Bucking the trend, the Jakarta Composite lost 0.20%.
At the time of writing, the key European markets were trading with gains of 0.77% to 1.66% and the US stock futures were in the green.
Back home, institutional investors, both foreign and domestic, were net sellers in the equities segment on Monday. While foreign institutional investors withdrew Rs30.10 crore, domestic institutional investors pulled out Rs111.08 crore from stocks.
Cairn India is ready to begin natural gas production from its prolific Rajasthan block and has sought government approvals to begin sale to consumers by the month end. The explorer currently produces small volumes of natural gas along with crude oil from the fields in the Barmer basin block. The gas produced in used for power generation for internal consumption. It, however, sees the resource base supporting commercial production of about 1 million standard cubic metres per day. The stock gained 1.35% to close at Rs292.35 on the NSE.
Vadodara-based pharma company, Alembic Pharmaceuticals has received the approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for a bioequivalent version of Pristiq by Pfizer. The product, which is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder, h as a market size of nearly $538 million (around Rs2,900 crore). The stock surged 14.84% to close at Rs92.10 on the NSE.
Ramco Systems today said it has bagged a new order from aviation charter service provider Hevilift Group through which the cloud solutions provider will provide its web-based solution to the group across 15 countries. The stock climbed 10.11% to settle at Rs92 on the NSE.
For the first time, the Directorate of Estate has said the there is no more unauthorised occupation of type-VIII government bungalows in New Delhi. However, there are still some bungalows like 6, Krishna Menon Marg, that remain unallocated for years
The Directorate of Estate (DoE) for the first time revealed under a Right to Information (RTI) application that there is no more unauthorised occupation of type-VIII government bungalows in New Delhi. The RTI application was filed by activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal.
Mr Agrawal said, it is also possible that the DoE might have somehow missed enclosing list of unauthorised occupied type-VIII government-bungalows at New Delhi.
According to the RTI reply, Meira Kumar occupies bungalow no 20 on Akbar Road. On 4 June 2004, bungalow No. 6 on Krishna Menon Marg was allotted to her while she was serving as minister for social justice. However, she expressed her inability to shift to bungalow No. 6 and requested for converting the bungalow into a memorial of her father Babu Jagjivan Ram.
“However, no decision was taken on this issue. The bungalow No. 6 has not yet been allotted pending the decision of government, “the RTI revealed.
“However, some government bungalows like at 6 Krishna Menon Marg (New Delhi) are being kept un-allotted for now more than a decade in the records of DoE even though the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) still considers the said bungalow in name of Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar. Practically speaking, this bungalow has never been vacated by its earlier occupants/ allottees because of encroachments and trespass admitted by government agencies,” Mr Agrawal said.
He said, “It is otherwise also senseless to keep prime property ‘un-allotted’ so long especially when there is an acute shortage of such government-bungalows in New Delhi.”
On the other hand, Mayawati, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief does not have a government accommodation allotted in her name in Delhi, the RTI revealed.
Due to the carelessness of the officials or the poor functioning of IITK, the complainant had to wait for five months for two simple and straightforward queries. The CIC fined the registrar and deemed PIO Rs15,000 each and also asked the PIO to pay a compensation of Rs5,000 to the RTI applicant. This is the 52nd 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 stating that it was unfortunate that a professor and registrar of India's premier Institution were trading charges of the other not being truthful, fined the registrar and deemed Public Information Officer (PIO) Rs15,000 each besides providing a compensation of Rs5,000 to the applicant, as per the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
While giving this important judgement on 28 May 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, "From the various discussions during the hearing it was evident that Dr TK Ghosal (registrar and PIO) and TK Mukherjee (officer on special duty and deemed PIO) were acting in concert and hence, both were equally responsible for not providing the information.”
The case of replying two simple queries saw various levels of allegations between the authorities while trying to fix the blame on each other for the delay.
Kharagpur (West Bengal) resident Prof Rajeev Kumar, on 4 October 2009 sought information related to Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law (RGSIPL) from IIT Kharagpur. Here is the information he sought...
1. List of all Adjunct/ Visiting/ Guest/ Contractual Faculty (including those who were called for guest/invited lectures) in RGSIPL from July 2006 till date.
a. Kindly include name, designation, affiliation, qualification, working experience, period of stay in RGSIPL nature of work, total amount of remuneration/honorarium paid including other expenditures for each of the members in the above list.
b. Kindly include other members/dignitaries, who are associated with the academic/legal work of RGSIPL and who are not included in the above list. Kindly exclude those persons who are working in RGSIPL as regular faculty members.
Since Prof Kumar did not receive the information within the mandated time of 30 days, he filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission on 25 December 2009. On 1 January 2010, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the information and also explain the delay for not furnishing the information within stipulated time.
The PIO sent a reply on 2 February 2010 to the Commission. He stated that he had provided the information to Prof Kumar on 6 January 2010 and on 1 February 2010. He also gave an explanation for the delay. However, the Commission felt that the explanation did not appear reasonable.
The Commission observed that both the PIOs (A Patra—the current PIO and Dr Ghosal—the earlier PIO) were guilty of not providing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act and the PIOs’ actions and attract penal provisions and disciplinary action under Section 20 (1) and (2). The CIC then issued a show-cause notice to the PIOs.
During a hearing on 19 March 2010, the PIO stated that after receiving the application on 6 October 2009, under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, on 7 October 2009, he sought assistance of Dr VC Vivekanandan, the then dean and professor of Law at RGSIPL. He stated on 23 November 2009, he sent a reminder to Dr Vivekanandan. On 23 November 2009, Prof S Matilal forwarded an email reply with a request to cross check the data with accounts department. But the PIO stated that he could not open the attachment sent with the email. SO on 6 January 2010, Dr Vivekanandan, sent the information, which was forwarded to Prof Kumar.
On 15 January 2010, Prof Kumar complained about receiving incomplete information. Then the PIO requested accounts department to provide the information and gave a reminder on 1 February 2010 to the Assistant Registrar, Accounts. On 1st February, the amount of honorarium paid to those who worked in RGSOIPL was provided to Prof Kumar which ran into 48 pages.
However, Prof Kumar pointed out that this list did not tally with the list, earlier provided to him, in terms of the names of the persons. In the first list Justice Pratap Ray and Anjan Sen had been mentioned but their names do not occur in the list showing the honorarium paid. There were a very large number of names to whom honorarium has been paid which did not occur in the first list.
The Commission then asked the PIO to explain these anomalies and give the complete list to the complainant before 30 March 2010.
Mr Gandhi, the CIC, noted that from the statements of the PIO, it appeared that Dr Vivekanandan was guilty of not providing information within 30 days. In addition the PIO knew that the amount of honorarium paid was not supplied to him and that he should have sought the assistance of the accounts department at least on 6 January 2010, when he forwarded the list to the complainant. However, he sought assistance of the accounts department on 15 January 2010.
“Information from a computerized accounts system about amount paid to people whose names are known should be available within minutes. Yet it is claimed that the accounts department took 15 days and a reminder from the PIO to give this information. The Commission recommends to the Director of IIT, Kharagpur to train people within the IIT who are dealing with RTI and setup some proper system where people understand what information is to be given and how it can be obtained,” Mr Gandhi noted.
During the hearing, Prof Kumar pointed out to the Commission that Dr Ghosal has during the discussions told him that “by doing this you are cutting your hand”. Prof Kumar felt that this was a threat. Dr Ghosal stated that it was not intended as a threat.
In its adjunct decision, the Commission directed the PIO to explain the anomalies and give complete list to Prof Kumar before 30 March 2010. The CIC also directed Dr Vivekanandan to present himself before the Commission along with his written submission on 19 April 2010.
During the show-cause hearing on 19th April, Dr Vivekanandan, in his written submission, stated that his office did not receive the RTI application on 6 January 2010 as claimed by the PIO. He stated that he received the RTI application only on 16 November 2009 and gave the information on 23rd November. Dr Vivekanandan also stated that he had written to the PIO on 6 January 2010 that the information was provided on 23 November 2009 and he again gave the information duly authenticated.
Dr Vivekanandan also stated that the actual amount of honorarium and other payments is dealt by central accounts department and that this information can only be provided by the accounts department and he clearly had no role to play in giving information about the amounts paid to visiting faculty. Though he had given the information to the PIO on 23 November 2009 the same was not sent to the information seeker till 6th January, he said.
In a letter sent to the PIO and also copied to the director of IITK and Dr Ghosal on 15 March 2010, Dr Vivekanandan mentioned that he should be informed if his presence was required during the Commission's hearing on 19th March.
He also alleged that on 17 March 2010, one Narayan Chandra Sarbajna, assistant at legal office entered his office and forcefully searched the drawers to access the seal of RGSIPL. He alleged that after procuring the stamp Sarbajna affixed the stamp on some papers. He has complained to the registrar of IIT Kharagpur about this on the same day.
According to Dr Vivekanandan, Dr Ghosal, the registrar and respondent in this case, called him on telephone to inform that RGSIPL or Dr Vivekanandan have not delayed any information and hence he (Dr Ghosal) would like to apologize for issuing the notice. Dr Ghosal also said that he would represent himself and Dr Vivekanandan can travel as per his program. “I come to understand from the (Commission's) order that respondent had suppressed the fact of my detailed note given on 15 March 2010 and had implicated me for the delay,” Dr Vivekanandan said.
The Commission said, it was evident that the statements of the Dr Vivekanandan, A Patra, PIO & assistant registrar (Audit), TK Mukherjee, OSD and Dr Ghosal, registrar (FAA) are contradictory. “The CIC is indeed distressed at the fact that the truth has not been revealed before the Commission,” Mr Gandhi noted.
He then directed all of them to appear together before the Commission on 24 May 2010. Dr Vivekanandan informed the Commission that he would be leaving IITK on 28th April. The Commission then asked Dr Ghosal, the registrar of IITK to provide an air ticket to Dr Vivekanandan for coming to Delhi and going back.
During a hearing on 24 May 2010, the Commission said it received written submissions from A Patra and Dr Ghosal. Mukhejee also sent a sworn affidavit. They all claimed that the submissions of Dr Vivekanandan were not correct while contending that the RTI application reached Dr Vivekanandan on 7 October 2009. The main conclusions of these submissions were...
“(a) RTI Application dated 04.10.2009 of Prof Rajeev Kumar was dispatched from the office of the PIO and it was received by the office of the Dean, RGSIPL. The proof of receipt and the proof of dispatch are with the PIO. Declarations to that effect have been taken from the persons who dispatched, who carried the document and who received the document and placed the same before the holder of the record.
(b) Documentary evidence showing that claims are generated from the RGSIPL, checked by the official of RGSOIPL and approved by Head, RGSIPL and cheques are disbursed through RGSOIPL office and payments are made from the Operating Grant of the Department. This conclusively proves that the holder of the records possessed the information as asked by the information seeker and could be provided on single window basis. Instead of that for the better reason known to them, the information holder suggested to give a different idea before the CIC through his e-mail dated 18.03.2010 (Copy enclosed. Since it was not correct information it was not placed before the Information Commissioner, CIC on 19/03/2010.)
The Commission is considerate and merciful enough to pardon and or condone the unintentional delay owing to the fact that PIO and other Institute Authorities are overburdened with workload, failed to meet the deadline, which is neither malafide nor a purposeful act on behalf of the PIO as he is dependent upon the supply of information/ documents from Holder of the Records."
Dr Vivekanandan stated that he had not received the RTI Application on 6 October 2009 but received a reminder on 16th November stating that the office of the PIO had sent him a letter on 6th October. He further stated that he had contacted the office of the PIO and explained that his office had not received any such letter that was sent on 6 October 2009 and the letter was brought to his notice only on 16th November. He further, submitted that he had asked his colleague Dr Shreya Matilal to collate and prepare the information required and the information had been provided to the PIO through an e-mail sent on 23 November 2009 with the attachment. He has also stated that after intimation from the office of the PIO about some problems about the software compatibility in opening the e-mail, he had again sent a fresh e-mail on 25 November 2009. He has further submitted that the other part of the information sought was about the remuneration paid to the contractual/ visiting experts, which was dealt by the accounts section of IIT Kharagpur, hence his office had no record of the same.
Dr Vivekanandan and Mukherjee both claimed that the other was not being truthful on the issue of the RTI application having been received by Dr Vivekanandan on 6 October 2009. “Considering the various charges and counter charges it was not possible for the Commission to determine who was telling the truth. However, there is no dispute that on 25 November 2009 the email with the names of the visiting/contractual faculties was received by the PIO. It was clear from that the email that the details of remuneration paid to them was not available with the Dr Vivekanandan, dean of RGSIPL and hence this information would only have been available from the accounts department,” Mr Gandhi, the CIC, noted.
The Commission said as per its observation, Dr Vivekanandan claimed he had received the RTI application only with the reminder dated 16 November 2009 from the PIO and had provided the information which pertains to his office on 23 November 2009 and again on 25 November 2009 and had also advised to cross check the information with the accounts department. “But neither the PIO Dr Ghosal nor the OSD and the deemed PIO, Mukherjee had tried to cross check the same and provide it to the complainant. It is clear that the other part of information regarding the remuneration was available with the accounts department. Dr Ghosal and Mukherjee had never tried to contact the accounts department to obtain the information. Moreover the PIO had sent another reminder to the Dean, RGSIPL to again provide the information with ‘authentication’ and further to provide the other part of information. Only when the complainant (Prof Kumar) complained that the details of remuneration had not been provided on 15 January 2010, they asked the accounts department to provide the details of the remuneration paid and give it to the complainant on 1 February 2010. This information did not tally with the list of names provided earlier and hence after the Commission's direction dated 19 March 2010, the complete information including the remuneration amount had been provided to the complainant on 30 March 2010, the CIC noted.
Mr Gandhi said, "During the hearing, Mukherjee, the OSD and the deemed PIO, did not give any reason to explain why he did not approach the accounts department to obtain the details of the remuneration paid to the adjunct/visiting/ guest/contractual faculty. Even if he did not realize this initially on 4 October 2009 when he received the RTI application, he should have sought the details of remuneration on 25 November 2009 when he realized that the details of remuneration were not available with the Dean, RGSIPL.”
The PIO submitted affidavits by Narayan Chandra Sarbjana, junior superintendent who claimed that he had received the RTI application on 7 October 2009 and that he was working with RGSIPL. Dr Vivekanandan however claimed that Sarbjana was not reporting to him and Sarbjana took the seal of the department on 17 March 2010 without authorization.
Matilal's email of 25/11/2009 with which the information was attached states...
“Dear Mr Mukherjee,
Please find attached wherewith the information available with us. I would advise you to kindly cross-check the information with the accounts department before sending the information to the RTI-applicant. The accounts department also needs to enter the remuneration/honorarium amount in column specified.
I am marking a copy of this email to our Dean for information.”
“Yet Mukherjee or Dr Ghosal made no effort to get the details of remuneration/honorarium from the accounts department but waited until the complainant pointed out on 15 January 2010 that the details of remuneration had not been provided. It appears from the evidence adduced during the hearing that Dr Ghosal who was the PIO and Mukherjee were jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information,” the Commission noted.
“However,” Mr Gandhi, the CIC, said, "neither of them was willing to admit that they were personally responsible. From the various discussions during the hearing it was evident that Dr Ghosal and Mukherjee were acting in concert and hence both were equally responsible for not providing the information.”
The Commission then reserved its decision.
While announcing the decision on 28 May 2010, Mr Gandhi said, “The Commission comes to the conclusion after looking at all the written and oral submissions of the complainant and the Respondents present during the hearing that there is no reasonable cause that has been advanced by the respondents, Mukherjee, OSD and Dr Ghosal, PIO & registrar for not providing the information to the complainant after it was received on 25 November 2009 from Dr Vivekanandan. The claim that ‘authentication’ was being sought for an e-mail sent by a faculty member for nearly 40 days until 6 January 2010 before the information could be disclosed to the Complainant does not sound reasonable.”
“From the serious allegations made by Dr Vivekanandan on one side and Patra, Mukherjee and Dr Ghosal on the other, it is difficult to arrive at the truth with regard to whether Dr Vivekanandan received the RTI Application on 6 October 2009. In view of this, the Commission is unable to fix any blame for this period. Since the evidence against Dr Vivekanandan is not very clear, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to impose a penalty on him. However, no reasonable cause has been provided for the complete failure by Dr Ghosal and Mukherjee to provide the complete information from the period of 25 November 2009 to 1 February 2010,” Mr Gandhi said.
The Commission said it found that the complainant (Prof Kumar) has been unnecessarily harassed by the PIO and the deemed PIO after he filed the RTI application. “For two simple and straightforward queries, the complainant has had to wait for almost five months. The complainant has certainly suffered from this harassment and the Commission has decided that a compensation of Rs5,000 should be awarded to the complainant for the loss and detriment suffered by him,” the CIC said.
“As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Dr Ghosal, the then PIO and registrar and TK Mukherjee, OSD and deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the complete information has been for 60 days from 1 December 2009 to 1 February 2010, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Dr Ghosal and Mukherjee at the rate of Rs250 per day of delay, i.e. 60xRs250= Rs15,000 each,” the Commission said.
Mr Gandhi, the CIC directed the director of IITK to recover Rs15,000 each from the salary of Dr Ghosal and Mukherjee. “The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs5,000 every month from their salary for three months. The first two cheques of Rs5,000 will be sent before 10 July 2010 and complete amount will be remitted before 10 September 2010,” the Commission said in its order.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001/6934Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001
Complainant : Prof Rajeev Kumar
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302
Respondents (1): A Patra
Public Information Officer (from 7/1/2010) &
Assistant Registrar (Audit)
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721 302
(2) Dr TK Ghosal,
Registrar and PIO (upto 7/1/2010)
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721 302
(3) TK Mukherjee
OSD and Deemed PIO
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721 302
(4) Dr VC Vivekananandan,
Professor of Law Director and deemed PIO
University of Law Hyderabad
Hyderabad – 500027