Tag Archives: DMSRDE

Drdo

RTI-RAC- Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur

1 Comment
To,                                                                                                          30th December 2013
Central Public Information Officer
RAC, DRDO, Ministry of Defence
Delhi-110054                     

Hello,

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur was directly recruited on post of Scientist ‘C’ from ISRO to DRDO in the year 2004. He was posted in SASE, Chandigarh in 2004 and transferred to DMSRDE Kanpur in 2009. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Copy of advertisement published in Employment News/Newspapers/Website against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  2. Name of the establishment/lab of DRDO on the request of which RAC created vacancy and advertise the direct post of Scientist ‘C’.
  3. Provide the copy of letter of request sent by Director of that establishment/lab to Director, DHRD/Director, RAC /DOP for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’.
  4. Qualification & experience sought in advertisement against which Mr. Arun Kumar Singh was recruited as Scientist ‘C’ in DRDO.
  5.  Date, venue and list of board member for selection of candidate against that vacancy.
  6. List of candidates those appear in interview/exam for recruitment of Scientist ‘C’ against that vacancy along with their qualifications & experience.
  7. Whether Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh informed to RAC that he was already in service at ISRO and applied through proper channel. (Yes/No)
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the copy of the declaration submitted by Mr.  Arun Kumar Singh to RAC, DRDO in this respect.
  9. Project/Task against which said vacancy of Scientist ‘C’ was created by RAC.
  10. Whether the experienced Scientist with same qualification and experience as sought in said recruitment were available in DRDO. (Yes/No)

The information sought is pertaining to Establishment matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

 

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number  – MODEF/R/2013/61200

Drdo

Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur -III

1 Comment
To                                                                                                
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT

Complaint against Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ & Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur For Corruption by issuing illegal & unauthorized Supply Orders for Cutting of Grass/Sarkanda, Pruning, Trimming & Cutting of Tress, Unauthorized construction of Parking Shades and Structural Alteration in R&D House(Director’s Residence) at DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena was appointed as Director, DMSRDE on 01st January 2011. Right from his joining he is involved in various kinds of Administrative and Financial irregularities that lead to Corruption.
  3. Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ is heading three divisions in DMSRDE, Kanpur. These divisions are Material Management Group (MMG), Estate & Works Division and Paints & Coating Technology Division. He is  henchman of Dr. AK Saxena thereby he was appointed as Head of three major Corruption full divisions despite several senior officers to Shielendra Kumar has not been appointed as Head of any division in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
  4. Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ made gross violation of DRDO Purchase Rules in issue of several illegal & unauthorized supply orders costing more than Rs. Twenty lakhs for cutting of grass/wild bushes/sarkanda, cutting/pruning & trimming of trees and unauthorized construction of Parking Shades in DMSRDE, Kanpur. He is also involved in unauthorized structural alteration in dedicated Government accommodation.
  5. DMSRDE, Kanpur is having 45 acres of defence land in which its Technical Area of DMSRDE has been constructed and lot of space near buildings, boundary walls etc is open and having more than 600 trees of various kind of wood including seesam, ukliptus, neem, sagaun etc.
  6. Supply Orders for cutting of grass/wild bushes/Sarkanda worth Rs.  3,86,998.00  By Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ on orders of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena

a.   No. 11026/1/D(Lands)/2000 Government of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi, dated 31st August 2000, clearly lays guidelines for cutting of grass / Sarkanda in Defence lands. It says that commanding Officers (OC) / Head of the Establishments are authorized to remove/ cut/ dispose of grass/ sarkanda subject to the following conditions:-

    i.            The grass will always be cut in time to avoid any fire hazard etc.

    ii.            The OC will be personally accountable to ensure the cutting of grass in time/ safety of the Ammunition/ ordnance Depots.

  iii.            A Board of Officers will be convened by the concerned Station HQrs of the Ammunition Depot/Ordnance Depot for disposal of the grass/ sarkanda and a representative of the DEO concerned will also be included in the Board.

  iv.            The disposal of the grass cutting rights shall be by calling tenders and highest bidder will be allotted the contract.

 v.            At the onset of the grass cutting season, the Board of Officers will inspect the land and prepare the Minimum Reserve Price (MRP) of the grass to be cut/ removed.

  vi.            The MRP would be approved by the OC/ Head of the Establishment concerned in consultation with the DEO. However, in case of a difference of opinion, the final decision rests with the OC/Head of the Establishment.

  vii.            In case of receipt of bids lower than the MRP, the authority competent to accept the same would be the GOC-in-C of the Command in consultation with the Principal ·Director, DE, in respect of cases where the MRP exceeds Rs. 10,000/-. In the case of MRP of Rs. 10,000/- and below, the OC in consultation with the DEO would be competent to accept bids lower than MRP.

 viii.            The proceeds will be credited to the Central Treasury by the OC Ammunition Depot/ Ordnance Depot.

b.     Copy of Letter No. 11026/1/D(Lands)/2000 Government of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi, dated 31st August 2000 is enclosed as Annexure-1. The same rule is quoted here for ready reference.

c.     The same rule applies to DRDO and is applied in letter spirit except for DMSRDE since 1st January 2011 when Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, a corrupt officer having scant respect of laid down rules and regulation took the charge as Director DMSRDE.  There is no provision of cutting grass/Sarkanda under DRDO’s Purchase Management 2006.  Gross irregularities, violation and criminal misconduct have been committed by Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena in cutting of grass / sarkanda in DMSRDE. The major irregularities and violations of rules are given below.

               i.            The head of Establishment shall ensure that a Board of Officers is convened by the concerned Station HQrs for disposal of the grass/ sarkanda and a representative of the DEO concerned will also be included in the Board. No such Board of Officers with a representative of DEO has been ordered by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director DMSRDE.

             ii.            The disposal of the grass cutting rights shall be by calling tenders and highest bidder will be allotted the contract. No such exercise was done and instead Mr. Shielendra Kumar and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena entered into a criminal conspiracy by inviting tenders for execution of this illegal work at the cost of exchequers money. Under normal circumstances the highest bidder would have been allotted the work and his money deposited in Central Treasury. The travesty of the matter is that instead of department gaining money has lost the same.

           iii.            The rules clearly say that at the onset of the grass cutting season, the Board of Officers will inspect the land and prepare the Minimum Reserve Price (MRP) of the grass to be cut/ removed.  Both in the calendar year 2012 and 2013 Mr. Shielendra Kumar and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena have split the demand.

d.     Details of illegal Supply Orders and execution of unauthorized work regarding Cutting/Cleaning of dense grass and Sarkanda by Mr. Shielendra Kumar and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena under a criminal conspiracy is as mentioned below: cvc sarkanda table1

e.    Copies of supply orders for demands no. DMSRDE/13WKS007 dated 17 May 2012, DMSRDE/13WKS014 dated 08 June 2012, DMSRDE/13WKS038 dated 05 Nov 2012 and DMSRDE/14WKS021 23 Sep 2013 are enclosed as Annexure-2 , Annexure-3, Annexure-4 & Annexure-5.

f.     M/s Vikalp Enterprises, Kanpur is under contract with Director, DMSRDE for Environmental Control Hygiene and Maintenance Services at DMSRDE, Technical Area since past ten years and this agreement renewed in each contract year with mutually agreed terms & conditions. In annexure-1 of this contract between Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and M/s Vikalp Enterprises, Kanpur for the year 2012 it is clearly mentioned that “Cleaning/trimming of trees/bushes on the sides of roads up to one meter and Removal/clearance of grass/bushes around test beds, buildings, sheds, petrol bunk and transformers” is included in scope of work.

g.      In the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 supply orders were issued to M/s Vikalp Enterprises, Kanpur for Environmental Control Hygiene and Maintenance Services at DMSRDE. The average cost of Supply Order is Rs.9, 90,000. Thereby the job of cutting of grass/sarkanda/bushes/trimming of tree were executed by M/s Vikalp Enterprises in DMRDE and fake cases were indented and supply orders were issued to M/s J.S. Enterprises by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE.

h.      The contracts awarded under supply orders as stated in point (d) were issued to M/s JS Enterprises which is fake firm of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and whole amount of money went to Dr. Saxena as no such work was carried out by M/s JS Enterprises as the said work was already covered under scope of work of the contract awarded to M/s Vikalp Enterprises, Kanpur for Environmental Control Hygiene and Maintenance Services at DMSRDE, Technical Area. Thereby this is clear case of fraud & Corruption of public money of Rs. 4, 81,498.00 by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and Shielendra Kumar.

i.      It is  explicitly clear that illegal, gross irregularities, subversion and violation of  rules and criminal misconduct has been committed by Mr. Shilendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena in cutting of grass / sarkanda in DMSRDE. Instead of the Government gaining Rs. 2.50 lakhs of money from the bidder these two corrupt officers have made exchequer to lose an amount of Rs.  8.0 lakhs of money.

7.     Supply Order for Pruning and Trimming of Tree in Tech. area and residentialcvc sarkanda table2

8.      Copy of the demand no. DMSRDE/13WKS035 dated 03 Oct 2012 is enclosed as Annexure-6. The vendors mentioned in demand are fake and not concerned with activities of cutting, trimming and pruning of trees. Director, DMSRDE is not authorized to issue any Supply Order for cutting/trimming/pruning of trees in defence land and only authorized agency for this purpose in Ministry of Defence is Principle Controller/DEO, Defence Estate Office, Lucknow. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena issued Supply Order without any authority to private vendor by heavy loss of revenue to exchequer and permitted to take along the wood costing more than ten lakhs free of cost to vendor along with cost of Supply Order. Copy of the supply order no. 13AM0036 dated 26 Feb 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-7.

9.      Supply Order to private vendor for construction of Parking Shade in DMSRDE, Kanpur

      i.            An application under RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for seeking information about Parking. CPIO, DMSRDE vide their letter dated 29 October 2013 replied that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. Copy of the CPIO letter dated 29 October 2013 is enclosed Annexure-8.

    ii.            First Appellate Authority, DRDO vide their letter dated 10 December 2013 informed that “M/s Gupta Construction is not a registered vendor in DMSRDE”. Copy of the FAA letter dated 10 Dec 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-9.

  iii.            Director, DMSRDE ordered Estate & Works Division to initiate the case of Vehicle Parking Shed. This case was initiated in two times with different nomenclature. Details are given below.cvc sarkanda table3

     vi.            Total cost expenditure in construction of Parking Shade was Rs. 12,70,000(Rupees Twelve Lakh seventy thousand only). Copy of Supply Order No. 13AT0230 dated 14 Jan 2013 is enclosed as Annexure-10.

    vii.            Director is not authorized to execute any civil works under build up. The only authorized agency to carried out said civil construction works under DRDO is MES. First items have been purchased on 14 Jan 2013 and the construction has been executed on 8 May 2013. As M/s Gupta Construction is not registered vendor of DMSRDE so Supply Order should not be executed to M/s Gupta Construction under Purchase Management 2006 of DRDO.

10.      Massive Structural Alterations/Additions in R&D House DMSRDE, Kanpur by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Shielendra Kumar were executed during 01 March 2011-30 Sept 2013 in which unauthorized construction has been done by misuse of power, diversion of MES fund and misappropriation of funds. Approximate amount of Rs. Thirty lakhs were expenditure in illegal & unauthorized construction in Government accommodation at DMSRDE by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena.   

11.    In aforesaid above mentioned cases Corruption has been meted out by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’, Head, Material Management Group and  Head, Estate & Works Division by misuse of powers for personal gain for which they were not authorized to do  under DRDO Purchase Management 2006.

Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts and evidences, I it is requested you to issue order for inquiry and disciplinary action against Mr. Shielendra Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ and Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE by CVO, Ministry of Defence.

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                  28th  December 2013                                                                                 
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879 Email-prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com

ANNEXURE-10

INDEX cvc sarkanda table4

To,                                                                                                                 
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105
 
To
Sh Avinash Chander
SA to RM,DG,DRDO
Room No 541, DRDO Bhawan
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105
 
To                                                                                                                              
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011 
Drdo, Uncategorized

First Appeal – Private Cars Using Commercial Purpose – DMSRDE

2 Comments

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
Dr Lokendra Singh,
OS & Sceintist ‘H’
First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 314 – A/A,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110105

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference:  Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.       Details of appellant:-

Name           Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address       21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008, Uttarakhand                    

2.       Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-

Name & Rank       Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address                 DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th  Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:

(a)  An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23rd October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)  Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th November 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.

(c)  It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23rd October 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010”.

(d)  In point d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?

(e)  In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.

(f)   The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE   on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.

(g)  Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.

(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.

(i)   Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.

5.       Prayer /relief sought for:-

Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 23rd  October 2013.

6.       Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                               
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com                                                                                                                                          

 Enclosure: Two

(1)      Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th  November 2013

(2)      RTI Application dated 23 October 2013

 
 RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
 
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, GT Road,
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO)Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  1. Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  2. Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  3. Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  4. Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  5. each vehicle.
  6. Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single                  Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  1. 2010-2011
  2. 2011-2012
  3. 2012-2013
  4. 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors in following format

9.      Amount of Service Tax that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in

following format

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY   2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)           Date: 23 October, 2013                                                       
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.dmsrde rti reply car
Drdo

Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur -II

Leave a comment
To                                                                                                                    26th December 2013
Central Vigilance Commissioner
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
 
To,                                                                                                                 
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105
 
To
Sh Avinash Chander
SA to RM,DG,DRDO
Room No 541, DRDO Bhawan
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105
 
To                                                                                                                              
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

SUBJECT : Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur

DRDO has an approved policy for guiding various procurements (Purchase Management –2006 document issued vide Govt. letter No DMM/PP/0000205/M/868/D(R&D) dated 22nd March 2006 amended vide letter No DMM/PP/0000206/M/2386/D(R&D) dated 21st Aug 2006

CORRIGENDUM No: 2 DMM/II/PP/0000207/M/3041/D(R&D) dated 15th Oct 2007

CORRIGENDUM No: 3 DMM/II/PP/0000208/M/3201/D(R&D) dated 16th Sept 2008

CORRIGENDUM No: 4 DMM/II/PP/0000210/P1/92/D(R&D) dated 14th Jan 2011

DRDO Directors never read above procurement documents because each and every case where Director’s pet agent involved means the above purchase rules have no meanings.

  1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ Applied Chemistry Division raised a demand No. DMSRDE/13552009 for “Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temp.Furnace” on 30th August 2012.
  2. SPC date 13th September 2012
  3. DRDO Hqrs approval 1st October 2012
  4. Tender Date 1st October 2012 (see the efficiency)
  5. TEC on 6th December 2012
  6. TPC on 16th Jan 2013
  7. Supply order place to M/s Omega Furnace Industries Bangalore, “Omega Atmosphere Controlled Muffle Furance ” vide SO No  DMSRDE/13AT0240/552/12-13/CMS-II dated 26 Feb 2011
  8. Supply Order of Rs 16,81,500.00
  9. Stores Received on 27th September 2013 vide RIN No 14LP0149
  10. Now on the Director’s pet agent M/s Manglam Traders come in front and a review TPC was done,  under Chairmanship of  Dr. Sarfaraz Alam, Sc’G’               para two of review TPC                                                                                                     “Now, the firm M/s  Omega Furnace Industries, Bangalore has intimated that billing and supply of stores will be done by their local dealer M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur, vide letter of even no dated September 24, 2013”                                           Para three of review TPC                                                                                                  “The finance rep told that the stores have been supplied by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. Hence, the payment may be made to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur”      Para four of review TPC                                                                                                       “ In view of aforesaid TPC recommends the following
    For-Supply the stores & payment may be made to M/s  Omega Furnace Industries, Bangalore Read-Supply the stores & payment may be made to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur
  11. In view of above details, it is clear Violation of Purchase Management 2006 Rule 7.15(a) Constitution of TPC/NC,  it is requested that registered the complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and his blind followers who are mishandling the government funds for their own vested interest. A thorough investigation is needed to explore the relation between Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. It may be reveal crores of crores rupees scam in DMSRDE and RCI, DRDO.
 
Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                            
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                              
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                 
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo

Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur

1 Comment
To                                                                                         24th December 2013
Central Vigilance Commissioner
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
 
To,                                                                                                                  
Joint Secretary (Estt.) and Public Grievances & CVO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 97, South Block,
New Delhi -110 105
 
To
Sh Avinash Chander
SA to RM,DG,DRDO
Room No 541, DRDO Bhawan
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110105
 
To                                                                                                                               
The Defence Minister
Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011 

SUBJECT : Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur

DRDO has an approved policy for guiding various procurements (Purchase Management –2006 document issued vide Govt. letter No DMM/PP/0000205/M/868/D(R&D) dated 22nd March 2006 amended vide letter No DMM/PP/0000206/M/2386/D(R&D) dated 21st Aug 2006

CORRIGENDUM No: 2 DMM/II/PP/0000207/M/3041/D(R&D) dated 15th Oct 2007

CORRIGENDUM No: 3 DMM/II/PP/0000208/M/3201/D(R&D) dated 16th Sept 2008

CORRIGENDUM No: 4 DMM/II/PP/0000210/P1/92/D(R&D) dated 14th Jan 2011

However, every Director of DRDO Labs has fixed their own agent (supplier) who can supply from needle to missile components or any high tech components/systems. In fact to this agent is always behind each and every supply national or international. This agent searches the world market and identifies a manufacturer / suppliers and obtains the details & specification and passed to Director for further procurement.

The following case is the example of modus oprendi of procurement case which directly benefit the lab director.

  1. DMSRDE wanted to procure 50 Lit. High Temperature Reaction System.
  2. Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO , Kanpur discussed this requirement with his pet supplier M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur
  3. Mr Anish Gupta from M/s Manglam Traders sends a mail to Dr A K Saxena on 6th December 2011

Subject: “Offer for High Temp. Reaction Unit”

“The line diagram attached is not exactly as per their offer, they have forwarded us understand it will be somehow like the same. As per our line of requirement they will send us in 2 to 3 days.” Attached two file with this mail

(i)     DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction-unit-50lit (enclosed)

(ii)   IPID0022 (enclosed)

4.      Dr A K Saxena forwarded this mail to Sh J N Srivastava  , Scientist ‘F’  indenter on  22 Dec 2011.
 
5.        The DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction-unit-50 lit proposal was originally send by the manufacturer “De Dietrich Process Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai” REF: DDI/DMSRDE/534.  DATE: 30th Nov 2011. In thirteen page proposal with specification and terms of condition and in page ten of price quoted Rs 62,50,000/- .

6.    In DRDO procurement policy lab Directors have power to sign up to 50 lakhs only.
Since the cost was escalating the limit, so Dr A K Saxena asked M/s Manglam to split the quote.
7.     As desired by Dr A K Saxena, Mr Anish, partner of M/s Manglam again send a mail on 27th Feb 2012

Subject : “LAB REACTOR”

“As per your discussion held with Mr. Manish enclosed please find here polycarbosilane reactor splitted in two quotes along with their technical prposal and specs for Tender Enquriy”. Attached five files with this mail

(i)                 Specification for High Temp. Reaction Overhead System (enclosed)

(ii)               DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_50lit_High_Temp_Reactor-Price_Bid (enclosed)

(iii)             DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction_Overhead_assembly-Technical_Bid (enclosed)

(iv)              DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction-unit-50lit (enclosed)

(v)                Specification for 50 liter High Temp. MONEL Reactor (enclosed)

9.    The case split in two i. –High Temp. Reaction Overhead System – price quoted Rs 28,50,000/-

ii.- 50 Ltrs. High Temp. Monel Reactor – price quoted Rs 38,50,000/-

10.   Dr A K Saxena forwarded this mail to Sh J N Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ intender on 2 March 2012.
11.   Amazing, a supplier dictates the specifications and quotations details of tender enquiry this is the harsh reality and modus oprendi of DRDO procurement scenario.
12.    As dictated by supplier/agent the demands raised by

(i)                 File no DMSRDE/13PPD003 dated 19-Apr-2012
 With new nomenclature – High Temp. Reaction Overhead System,
SPC date 3rd May 2012,
CFA (Dr A K Saxena) Approved 23rd  May 2012,
DRDO HQ APPROVAL 23-May-2012 & Recommended ,
Tender no 13ATT022 date 05-Jun-2012,
TEC-21st August 2012,
TPC – 30th August 2012,
Supply Order No 13AT0165 – 13th September 2012 to M/s De Dietrich Process System, Mumbai,
Supply Order Cost- Rs 30,93,750.00,
Supply Received on 28th Jan 2013 vide RIN No. 13UP0271
 
(ii)               File no DMSRDE/13PPD004 dated 19-Apr-2012
With new nomenclature – 50 Ltrs. High Temp. Monel Reactor,
SPC date 3rd May 2012,
CFA(Dr A K Saxena) Approved 23rd  May 2012,
DRDO HQ APPROVAL 23-May-2012 & Recommended,
Tender no 13ATT022 date 05-Jun-2012,
TEC-21st August 2012,
TPC – 24th August 2012,
Supply Order No 13AT0168 – 20th September 2012 to M/s De Dietrich Process System, Mumbai,
Supply Order Cost- Rs 43,31,250.00,
Supply Received on 28th Jan 2013 vide RIN No. 13UP0270
 

13      Reactor was deliberately split into two parts in budget forecast and two separate FBE numbers allotted to bring the purchase within Director’s power by Dr A K Saxena.
 
14.     Two Technical Evaluation Committees one headed by Dr. D N Tiphati and the other by Mr. Darshan Lal clear the split cases and Dr. Sarfaz Alam Chairman of Store Purchase Committee clears these split cases on the same day.   
 
15.     Mr J N Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ indenter protests by saying that “The splitting of one item into two is against the purchase procedure of DRDO and CVC’s guidelines“. Dr A K Saxena forced him to process case in split way because of DRDO Directors having absolute power and absolute power means absolute corruption..
 
16.      However on 12th October 2013, Dr A K Saxena sends a memo DP/15 to Mr J N Srivastava strangely enquiring as to why this case of reactor was split and not purchased as a single unit. Dr A K Saxena is not satisfied with the reply of Mr J N Srivastava that he was instructed by Dr. Ashok Rajan the programme Director to indent and instead pressurizing Mr J N Srivastava to justify the unjustable.
 
17.       Till date the reactor was not assembled  and poor tax payer money was wasted, although the payment was not cleared but manpower cost of project was wasted in the interest of Dr A K Saxena.
 
18.      Poly-di-methyle-saline (PDMS) cannot be processed and converted into Polycarbosailine as a product without assembling both the parts of reactor.
 
19.      Poly-di-methyle-saline (PDMS) already purchased worth lakhs of rupees from Dr A K saxena’s pet supplier (Mr Anish Gupta) The PDMS case will send separately.
 
20.       Dr A K Saxena violated all the laid down DRDO procurement rules mentioned above.
 
21.       It is requested that the case may thoroughly examined keeping mind to cost to benefit ratio and the role of DRDO Hqrs rep and PCDA (R&D) involvement. Fix the accountabilities and booked the culprits at the earliest.

Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                             
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                               
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879                                                                  
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com

Annexure – 7

  1. DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction-unit-50lit
  2. IPID0022
  3. Specification for High Temp. Reaction Overhead System
  4. DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_50lit_High_Temp_Reactor-Price_Bid
  5. DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction_Overhead_assembly-Technical_Bid
  6. DMSRDE_Techno-Commercial_Reaction-unit-50lit
  7. Specification for 50 liter High Temp. MONEL Reactor
Drdo

CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANTIVIRUS – DMSRDE

3 Comments
 
To                                                                                                            17th December 2013
Central Vigilance Commissioner
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023

SUBJECT : CORRUPTION IN PROCUREMENT OF ANTIVIRUS

COMPLAINT AGAINST :  Mr. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’ and  Dr. ARVIND KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR, DMSRDE, KANPUR

Sir,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT 

  1. Defence Materials & Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE), Kanpur is an establishment under Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
  2. Purchase Management 2006 is applicable for procurement of store items in DRDO.  Gross irregularities and violation of Purchase Management 2006 was made in procurement of Antivirus Software in year 2013 when the cases were indented by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’. The major irregularities and violations of purchase rules are given below.

i.        Method/Mode of Procurement: Method of procurement in all the three cases of Quick Heal Antivirus was Local Board. When there was a consolidated demand of 372 Antivirus and total cost of the case was around Rs. 270000.00 then case should be raised under Limited Tender as per Rule 7.6 of PM 2006. Vide letter No. DMM/II/PP/0000207/M/3041/D(R&D) dated 15th Oct 2007 Corrigendum No. -2 Directors of Establishments are empowered to constitute Local Purchase Committee for purchase up to cost of Rs. 1.0 Lakh on urgent requirements by amending Rule 6(d) of PM 2006. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-7. The same rule is quoted here for ready reference.

Purchase of goods by purchase committee: Purchase of goods costing above Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only and up to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only on each occasion may be made on the recommendations of a duly constituted Local Purchase Committee consisting of three members of an appropriate level as decided by the Director of Lab/Estt. The committee will survey the market to ascertain the reasonableness of rate, quality and specifications and

Identify the appropriate supplier. Before recommending placement of the purchase order, the members of the committee will jointly record a certificate as under. CFA will ensure that splitting of demands is avoided.

ii.        Splitting of consolidated demand of Antivirus in three parts: Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena split the consolidated the demand in three parts and misused his official position & powers so that case could not go under Limited Tender. In all cases of three local boards supply order was placed to the same vendor. This establishes vested interests of Dr. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar using Local Board for purchase of Antivirus instead of Limited Tender. This leads loss to public fund and Corruption of Rs. 37920.00 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar.

iii.        As per provisions of Purchase Management 2006 Rule 5.1.1(b) –Purchase orders will not be split-up to avoid the necessity for obtaining sanction of the higher authorities. Copy of the rule is enclosed as Annexure-8. Sprit of Purchase Rules and CVC Guidelines is that “The proposals shall not be split merely to bring them within the delegated powers”.

iv.           Local Board did not make market survey to ascertain the reasonableness of rate, quality and specifications and identify the appropriate supplier, rather one vendor M/s P. S. Computronics pre-fixed by Dr. Saxena was allowed to submit three quotations to Sarvesh Kumar and board members were forced to sign the certificates and other purchase related papers. Hence purchase procedure according to Purchase Management 2006 was not followed and grossly violated in this case.

3.           Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ are posted in DMSRDE, Kanpur. Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena is Director, DMSRDE with effect from 01 January 2011.

4.           Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE dissolved Information Technology Division on 02 Dec 2013 and constituted a new division “Computer Science Division” under headship of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’.

5.            Procurement and installation of Antivirus in all computers available in DMSRDE was one of the charters of Information Technology Division. Every year this division was purchasing about 300 units of Antivirus Licenses for security of PCs. These Antiviruses are having life time of one year from date of installation.

6.            In the year 2011, a demand was initiated for procurement of Antivirus Licenses with following details. Copy of the demand is enclosed as Annexure-1.table1

7.             300 units of Quick Heal Total Security Antivirus were purchased in the year 2012 on the basis of demand mentioned above. Details of procurement are given below. Copies of Supply Orders issued on 14 Nov 2011 are enclosed as Annexure-2.

table2

8.           Unit price details of Quick Heal Antivirus purchased in year 2012 are given below.table3

9.            During the period his posting at Information Technology Division, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01.01. 2011 to 02.12.2013, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ made following procurements as indenter on orders of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director. Copies of the demands initiated by Sarvesh Kumar are enclosed as Annexure-3LIST OF CASES INDENTED AND ITEMS PROCURDED BY MR. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’

table4 Demand status of cases initiated by  Mr. Sarvesh Kumar is enclosed as Annexure-4.

10.            In Information Technology Division, DMSRDE, Kanpur three Scientist Mr. R.P. Bhat, Scientist ‘F’, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. N.P. Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ were posted from 19 Feb 2012- 02 Dec 2013. Mr. R.P. Bhat, Scientist ‘F’ was Head of Information Technology Division.

11.              IT Division sought Proposal for Antivirus for procurement of Quickheal Total Security Antivirus from M/s Well Known Computers Pvt Ltd, Kanpur in the year 2013 on 14.01.2013. Copy of the proposal dated 14.01.2013 is enclosed as Annexure-5. The details of the proposal Well Known Computers are as under.

table5

12.            In the year 2013, for procurement of Quick Heal Total Security Antivirus (300 Units) a Statement of Case was put-up to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for procurement of Antivirus under Limited Tender through Head IT Division but Dr. Saxena turned down the case and constituted a Local Board for procurement of Antivirus.  This Local Board was constituted of Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘E’ (now Scientist ‘F’) Chairman, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ and Mr. N.P. Gupta, Scientist ‘C’.

13.             On direction of Dr. Saxena, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar split the demand of Antivirus licenses in three parts and gets financial sanction from Dr. Saxena, Director in three cases under Local Board. Total consolidated demands of 372 Antivirus licenses were split in three parts so that cases remain under financial powers (Rs. 1.0 lakh) of the Director and procurement could be made under Local Board. Details of procurement of Quick Heal Total Security Antiviruses in the year 2013 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’ are given below.table6

These Quickheal Antivirus packs were received by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar on 11 Apr 2013 vide Receipt & Inspection Note (RIN) No. 14LP0009 and 14LP0010 dated 11 April 2013. Copies of the receipts are enclosed as Annexure-6.

14.        Unit price details of Quick Heal Antivirus purchased in year 2013 by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are given below.table7

15.         It is very clear from the observation of the Purchase Proposal of Well Known Computers and procurements made by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar that the rates of Quickheal Antivirus are higher in later case. This lead loss to Government fund due to corrupt practices adopted by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar. Comparative details of both cases are given below.

Comparative rates of Well Known Computers (Proposal) and P.S. Computronics (Sarvesh)table8

Loss to public fund on purchase of Antivirus by Sarvesh Kumar on split of consolidated demand by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDEtable9

16.      Before placing the order the IT division can see these online offers which are less then quoted price and negotiate for best price from vendors in the interest of organization. Even that the for bulk there paper license offers are available.
17.       Therefore purchases made by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar by split of consolidated demand of Antivirus lead loss to public fund by Rs. 37920.00 and in turn make a scope of Corruption.

VIOLATION OF DIRECTOR’S POWER AND CONDUCT RULES

i.     Misuse of power & position for personal gain
ii.    Violation of Rule 3(1) and 3(2)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964                   iii.    Splitting of demands of Antivirus in three parts and Constitution of Local Board instead of Limited Tender for purchase of Antivirus                                                                   iv.   Sanctioning of three cases of purchases each just below Rs. 1.0 Lakh of his financial powers

AS HEAD “Computer Science Division” MR. SARVESH KUMAR, SCIENTIST ‘F’ VIOLATED THE DRDO PROCUREMENT RULES

i.       Did not follow the purchase procedure of Local Purchase Committee. Didnot make any market survey instead collected three quotations by hand from representative of M/s P. S. Computronics, Kanpur and forced to sign on the papers to other two members of the board.
ii.       Gross violation of conduct under Rule 3.(1) of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964

Therefore, in light of the above mentioned facts and evidences, may kindly investigate the matter. This may be the “tip of iceberg”. Further investigation may reveal violations of procurement for personal gain in the tune of corers of rupees.

The classic example from DMSRDE, Kanpur is the violation of procurement rules for the purchase of   “High Temp. Reaction Overhead System” 28,50,000 &   “50 Ltrs. High Temp. Monel Reactor” 38,50,000. This split case example of where Director’s power is limited up to 50 lakh with a Hqrs rep. because without splited the system cost was Rs 62.5 lakh. The details will be followed.

Similar misadventure was committed several times in the name of technology development by Ex, DG, DRDO Dr V K Saraswat, where financial power was limited up to 50 corers  and CAG in its special audit noticed violation of splitting the procurement cases while CCPA approved for Rs 150 corers.

Regards

 Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879 
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com
table10
 
Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE – M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur

Leave a comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Scientist ‘F’
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

                    Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the following information in respect of Tender Reference No. DMSRDE/13552064 published on website of DRDO.(Copy Enclosed)
    1. Comparative Statement of Tender duly approved by SPC and Director.
    2. Name of vendor/firm/trader (L1) to which Supply Order was issued.
    3. Provide copy of supply order issued against this tender enquiry.

    Cost of the material purchased against supply order under above mentioned tender reference

  2. Provide following information in respect of business carried out by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    1. Registration Certificate issued to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur by DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    2. As per provisions of Rule 3.2 of Purchase Management 2006 of DRDO in which  categories of stores, e.g., raw materials, chemicals, machine tools, instruments, electronics and electrical items, timber, fabrication jobs and other general stores etc., the M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
    3. Total cost of supply orders placed in the year 2009 and 2010.
    4. Total cost of supply orders placed from 1st January 2011 to 31st October 2013.
    5. Copies of supply orders placed to Manglam Traders from 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013.
    6. Number of repeat order placed to Manglam Traders and copies of  supply orders issued for repeat order
  3. Provide the copy of supply order placed against DMSRDE Case No. 13PDD014 dated 25.04.2012 initiated by Production Division.
  4. Provide amount in Kg of Polydimethylsilane(PDMS) purchased in the period.
    1. 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010
    2. 01.01.2011 to 31.10.2013
    3. Likely to be purchased(Supply Order placed)
  5. Copies of bills submitted by M/s Manglam Traders to DMSRDE, Kanpur against supply orders and repeat orders placed to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur.

The information related to purchase, supply orders, bills etc. has already been allowed by FAA, DRDO vide his decision No. RTI/02/2091/F/2013/0142 dated 14 October 2013 in First Appeal No. 142 on First Appeal of applicant.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F548630 ) is enclosed as Annexure-1.

Date: 10 November, 2013                                                

(Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
 21-Sunderwala, Raipur
 Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand                     

Annexure:-

  1. 1.    IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 17F548630 as application Fee.                
Drdo

First Appeal – Parking – DMSRDE

1 Comment

FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005

To,
  Shri Suranjan Pal,
  OS & Director DECS,
 First Appellate Authority, DRDO
  RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B , 
  DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
  New Delhi-110011

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005

Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur

Sir,

I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.

1.   Details of appellant:-applicant2.   Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-cpio kanpur

3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-

Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.

4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-

(a)          An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.

(b)          Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of Corruption and not come under Schedule-II.

(c)          It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure”.

(d)          In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.

(e)          In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.

(f)           CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motive under direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.

(g)          Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

5.   Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-

First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.

(a)       Under the provisions of Section 24(1)  of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.

(b)       Appellant submitted an application dated 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for   providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.

(c)        Information was denied by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.

(d)       The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 04 October 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.

(e)       Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant for getting the information.

(f)         CPIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused Section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.

(g)       Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.

6.   Prayer /relief sought for:-

  1. Information sought vides RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
  2. Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
    1. 7.   Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
    2. 1.     CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of

     RTI Act 2005 like DRDO

(i)       CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

(ii)      CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.

(iii)     These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.

(iv)     Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter

(v)      In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.

  1. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
  2. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  5. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  6. CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
  7. CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
  8. CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
  9. CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  10. CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
  11. CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)

(vi)     In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.

2.     Nature of information sought is not  related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters

Information sought is related to “Parking”. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.

3.     Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature is permissible & allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.

4.     Information sought is also related to allegations of Corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 04 October 2013. Information sought is having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of Corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?

                  i.        It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide Minute Sheet No.  AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).  Vide this order “all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.

                ii.        This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.

              iii.        MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.

               iv.        The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.

                 v.        All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.

               vi.        Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.

             vii.        It is quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.

            viii.        The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD  for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.

               ix.        Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.

8.   Declaration:-

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21- Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand

Appeal No.:FA/PDD/DMSRDE/2013/Parking

Date: 08 November, 2013                                          

 Enclosure: Two 

(1)  Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 29 October 2013.

(2)  RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.

 

Drdo

RTI – CSD – DMSRDE

Leave a comment
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013                    

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

In its various decisions CIC consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005. 

BRIEF FACTS FOR APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005

With reference to your Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 and modified Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 04 October 2013, signed by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl Director (Admin.) on behalf of Director.

  1. It has been ordered by these Minute Sheets that “wef 01.10.2013 all officers and employees are informed to park their vehicles in the Parking Area constructed near CSD Canteen” and “above Minute Sheet is related to the officers/employees who goes to CSD Canteen for purchasing items by their vehicles”.
  2. Facts narrated above in points (1) and (2) establish that CSD Canteen building exists in DMSRDE and CSD facility is available in DMSRDE

In light of above facts kindly provide following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide the details of officers and staff with name & rank that are attached and involved in management and operation of DMSRDE CSD Canteen right from Chairman, Officer-In- Charge, Technical Officers and Staff at present.dmsrde csd table1
  2.  Total monthly expenditure incurred on incentives/emoluments to official working part time in DMSRDE CSD Canteen for month July 2013.
  3. Provide the amount of miscellaneous expenditure incurred in July 2013 under following heads in DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
  4. dmsrde csd table2Balance sheet of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for the month July 2013.
  5. Provide details of funds available with DMSRDE CSD Canteen in its Current A/C at SBI DMSRDE Branch Kanpur and all Fixed Deposits pledged with this Current account at SBI DMSRDE Branch.
  6. The competent authority responsible for attachment of officials at CSD Canteen.
  7. Whether rotation of officials working in CSD Canteen took place vide CVC Circular No.03/09/13 letter No.004/VGL/090/225753 dated 11.9.2013. (Yes/No).
  8. If answer to point (7) is yes then provide the maximum period for which an official could remain attached with CSD Canteen?
  9. Mr. DP Shukla, Lab. Attd. (Now Technical Officer) is attached/posted in DMSRDE CSD Canteen since long time. Provide his attachment/posting detail in DMSRDE CSD Canteen from 01.01.2000 to 30 September 2013.
  10. DMSRDE CSD Canteen is a profitable unit which earning good amount of money by getting commission/profit in sale of store items at canteen. In which account this money is being deposited and the name of officers who are authorize/responsible to withdraw the money.
  11. Provide type /nature of purpose for which the fund of CSD can be utilized.
  12. Can CSD fund be utilized for purchase of item/store/services that are not used by CSD Canteen instead used by DMSRDE officials like furniture, construction of aluminum, partitions, distribution of gifts etc.?
  13. Provide sales statement of DMSRDE Canteen for month of July 2013.
  14. Cheque No. 871271 dated 22.7.2013 issued by DMSRDE Canteen. Provide information in following format.
  15. dmsrde csd table3Cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) in July 2013. Provide following information in this regard-
    1. Name of the firm/vendor in favor of which cheque No. 871267 with payable amount of Rs. 214312.00 was issued.
    2. Purpose of issue of the cheque No. 871267 of DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
    3. List of items purchased through cheque No. 871267 issue by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) for amount Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
    4. User of the items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 issued for Rs. 214312/-.
    5. The items purchased vide cheque No. 871267 has been kept in which place.
    6. Copy of bill of vendor/firm for supply of items against cheque No. 871267 issued by DMSRDE Canteen (CSD) with amount of Rs. 214312.00 in July 2013.
  16. Whether any fund was withdrawn from account of DMSRDE Canteen for purpose of aluminum door and grill partition in Security Division Building at reception counter.(Yes/No)
  17. If answer to point (16) is yes then provide the expenditure details for the said work at reception of Security Office.
  18. If answer to point(16) is No, then provide the following details
    1. The agency (DMSRDE/MES) which issue supply order to accomplish the task for aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    2. The name of vendor who make aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    3. The copy of supply order issued for making the aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
    4. Total expenditure involved in construction of aluminum partition at reception of Security Office.
  19. Provide copy of statement of expenditure for Rs. 255248.00 from 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013 under Miscellaneous Head for month of July 2013 in DMSRDE Canteen (CSD).
  20. Whether audit of CSD Canteen accounts took place by Local Audit Officer (LAO)/ACDA on annual basis. Yes/No
  21. If answer to point 20 is yes then provide the copy of audit report of DMSRDE CSD Canteen for FY 2012-2013.
  22. Percentage of average profit in sale of items/store at DMSRDE CSD Canteen.
  23. Average profit of DMSRDE CSD Canteen in rupees  per month in FY 2012-13.
  24. How much funds/money has been expenditure in welfare activities from CSD fund in FY 2012-2013?

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

Besides Information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549286) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 (Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Uttarakhand           
prabhudoon@gmail.com, www.corruptionindrdo.com        

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.  17F 549286  as application Fee.
Drdo

Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose

3 Comments
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar
Central Public Information Officer
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013             

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005

Hello,

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof in these decisions.

  1. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
  2. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
  3. CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
  4. CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)

CIC in its above mentioned decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

In light of the above decisions of CIC, Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Total No.  of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
  2. Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
  • Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
  • Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
  • Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
  • Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
  • each vehicle.
  • Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

3.      How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4.      Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single            Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.

  • 2010-2011
  • 2011-2012
  • 2012-2013
  • 2013-2014

5.     Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6.     Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7.      Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8.      Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors  in following formatrtimtpost1

 9.      Amount of Service Tax  that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in following formatrtimtpost2

  1. Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
  2. Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
  3. Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
  4. Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
  5. If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
  6. Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following formatrtimtpost3
  1.  Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
  2. Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are

(a)   UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)

(b)   UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)

  1. If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
  2. If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
  3. The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.

The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.

Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.

The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.

 
 
Date: 23 October, 2013                                                                              (Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal)
                                                                                                                              21-Sunderwala, Raipur
                                                                                                                               Dehradun-248008
                                                                                                                              Uttarakhand                    

Annexure:-

  1. IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No.   17F 549289   as application Fee.