REC’s public issue of Secured Redeemable Tax-Free Bonds closes 23rd September, but the opportunity may be over soon in case the company gets necessary funds
State-run Rural Electrification Corp (REC) public issue of Secured Redeemable Tax-Free bonds will open for subscription on 30th August. The issue closes 23rd September, but the opportunity may be over soon in case the company gets necessary funds quickly from early subscribers.
The tranche issue by the issuer is of bonds for an amount of Rs1,000 crore with an option to retain oversubscription upto Rs2,500 crore aggregating upto Rs3,500 crore. REC will use the capital raised through this bonds for lending purposes.
The tax-free coupon rate on these bonds will be 8.26%, 8.71% and 8.62% for 10, 15 and 20 years respectively. Non-retail investors will get 0.25% lower rate; it will be 8.01%, 8.46% and 8.37% for 10, 15 and 20 year respectively.
The issue will have a 40% reservation for retail investors, while 20% each for high-networth individuals (HNIs), corporates and qualified institutional buyers (QIBs).
The lead managers to the issue are ICICI Securities, A K Capital Services, Axis Capital and Edelweiss Financial Services.
Complete arbitrariness in the functioning of the department of food and supply in GNCTD was forcing citizens to take the RTI route to get their rightful entitlements, the CIC noted. This is 163rd 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 special food commissioner of Department of Food And Supply (DFS) in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to conduct an enquiry into the matter where below poverty line (BPL) card holders are not getting rations. While the Public Information Officer (PIO) and food and supply officer (FSO) were blaming computer systems for the problems, the food commissioner stated that complaint about computer systems were unjustifiable.
While giving this judgement on 27 June 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “This appears to show complete arbitrariness in the functioning of the department which can only be a fertile breeding ground for corruption. The Bench directs Special Food commissioner to inquire into the matter and send the report to the appellant and the CIC before 30 July 2011.”
Delhi resident Raj Kumari, on 7 January 2011, sought from the PIO information about the status of her ration card. Here is the information she sought under the RTI Act...
With respect to the complaint in your department dated 27 September 2010 for providing me ration on my BPL Ration Card operational:
1) Provide the Daily Progress Report on my complaint.
2) Provide the details of the officer to whom the complaint was forwarded, for how many days did the complaint remain with each of the officers and what action was taken by each of the with regards to the complaint.
3) Provide the name and designation of the officers who were supposed to take action on my complaint but failed to do so.
4) What action will be taken against such officers and by when will such an action be taken?
5) Within how many days will action be taken on my complaint?
In his reply on 24 January 2011, the PIO said, "With reference to your letter dated 03/01/2011, repeated attempts are being made that ration be provided to all the card holders at the earliest."
On 7 March 2011, the PIO sent another reply stating, "In reference to your letter under the RTI, with respect to your BPL Card No3330320, your name is not available on the list. Attempts are being made to update your name on the list after which ration will be provided to you."
Citing the PIO did not provide any reply even after the stipulated time, Raj Kumari, the applicant filed her first appeal.
The copy of the order by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was not attached (in the second appeal) but the appellant claimed that the FAA directed the FSO to update the list of the ration card holders and provide ration to all whose ration card number was on the list.
Raj Kumari, citing the information sought for had not yet been provided by the PIO and no action was taken on the complaint, approached the CIC with her second appeal.
During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that the appellant was another victim of the wayward methods of the Food and Supplies Department.
"The FSO and deemed PIO claims that computers and computer systems are creating problems whereas the Food Commissioner met the undersigned last week and claimed that field staff is complaining about computer systems unjustifiably. The FSO admits that nearly 300 BPL ration cardholders are not getting their rations since July-August 2010. The FSO claims that the biometric data of these card holders was taken and but was not available with the main computer branch at headquarters. He stated consequent to this; BPL cardholders are not getting rations. He also informed the Bench that there are some Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) cardholders, who are also on the same plight.
Raj Kumari stated that when she has gone for the first appellate hearing she was asked to go to the third floor at computer branch, where she was informed that her ration entitlement was being allocated to the shop.
"The appellant made enumerable trips everywhere and stated that she was able to get ration only in April 2011. This appears to show complete arbitrariness in the functioning of the department which can only be a fertile breeding ground for corruption," Mr Gandhi noted.
While allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the special food commissioner to inquire into this (matter) and take appropriate measures to see that the appellant and others get their rations. "It is distressing that number of such cases keep coming through the RTI route to get their rightful entitlements," Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted in his order.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001192/13106
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001192
Appellant : Raj Kumari,
Respondent : Alok Bhattacharya
Deemed PIO & FSO(C-47)
Department of Food and Supply,
Cuircle-47, Asian Market,
Pushp Vihar, Phase-III,
New Delhi 110062
The fake job scam has acquired a new dimension. Scamsters try to con you into shelling out at least Rs525 to accept a VPP parcel that ostensibly contains a call letter for a job. In a faltering economy with massive layoffs, this seems like the latest trick to cheat people. We investigate one such scam
SSS Industrial Job Services, the Andhra Pradesh based placement and recruitment agency is luring job seekers with its fake call letter scam using the Indian Post. This is similar to the value payable postal (VPP) service or cash on delivery (CoD) fraud used by scamsters during the 1990s to dupe thousands of people under the pretext of receiving radio-transistor or mixer-grinder. The parcels usually contained stones or bricks and sometimes just waste papers!
SSS Industrial Job Services is sending the VPPs to job seekers. It may be using the database from any job site for sending call letters. One such VPP landed at my door, where the postman asked my mother to pay Rs525 (Rs500 for the parcel and Rs25 for postal fee). Since I was not at home, my mother refused to accept the parcel and pay any money. Then the postman left a delivery note with my mother asking me to collect the VPP from the post office by paying Rs525.
Since I had no knowledge of SSS Industrial Job Services or any such placement agency, I checked the background of the agency on Internet. There are several complaints about the agency and its VPP parcels that contain fake call letters printed in Telugu. On ConsumerCourt.in, several people have complained about receiving VPP from SSS Industrial Job Services that contain fake call letter.
Mamtha, one such victim, says. “I got fake call letter on 30/4/2012 through post and they charged me 500 rupees. On inquiry I came to know that it is a fake call letter, even I searched in consumer forum they are many victims who got same fake letters.”
Another victim says, “I am M.Kumari Muthu Kiruba. On a Saturday, last year, (date 16-6-2012), my family and I went to my native place. So my neighbour received the call letter on my name from your company. But to receive the call letter they charge Rs525.”
Another complainant who received such VPP says, “Sir, I am Suhas Gaikwad I also received same call letter from SSS Industries with same address and was charged Rs525. But I can’t accept this letter till it is in at the post Office. I first want to inquire about the company. Then, I saw the post about the fake CALL LETTERS from SSS Industries. So please guide me whether or not I should receive that letter.”
However, one Uday Kumar from Bangalore posted a different view about the SSS Industries parcel in ComplaintBoard.in. He says, “Guys it is not fake call letter, I got their number and spoke to them. SSS is the consultancy, which is providing job services in Andhra Pradesh. Rs525 is the postal charges and we have to go for interview to their office. If we are OK with the job which they offer, we have to pay Rs3,000. Otherwise, there will be no extra charges. Please stop these negative comments.”
Even accepting it as a genuine call letter, as per Uday Kumar, why should an agency from Andhra Pradesh send call letters to somebody in Mumbai - that too in Telugu, without the person even applying for the job, in the first place?
In short, this is nothing but a fraud and in case you receive such VPP from SSS Industrial Job Services, do not accept the parcel by paying any money. In case you are already duped, then please reach your post office immediately and file a complaint against the agency.
This is what the Indian Post says about fraud through VPPs
“If a complaint is made by the addressee immediately after the receipt of a value payable postal (VPP) article, that it was sent dishonestly or fraudulently, the Head of the Circle may, if he is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for believing that the value payable postal article was sent with the intention of defrauding the addressee, withhold the payment to the sender of the money recovered from the addressee. If after making such enquiries as may be necessary, he is fully satisfied that the value payable postal article was sent with this intention, he may order the return of the article to the sender and refund to the addressee the sum of money recovered from him on delivery of the value-payable postal article.”