shailesh gandhi

B2 Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W),Mumbai-400054 ,

Tel: 022 26001003;

Email: shaileshgan@gmail.com
Second Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act 2005 (consisting of 11 pages)
SENIOR CITIZEN PRIORITY REQUESTED- Age 65 years.
To,
The Central Information Commission,
R.No.326, C-Wing, II Floor, August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066, .

1. Name of appellant:-

Shailesh Gandhi

2. Address: B2, Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz(W), Mumbai 400054.

3.Name and address of CPIO: Mr. Prakash Joshi DGM replied that CDR cell is not a Public
authority.
4. Name and address of appellate authority: Not known.

5. Particulars of the decision or order, of the PIO if any, against which the appeal is
preferred: Letter no. 21/RTI/No. 530/2014-15 of 11 November 2014.
6. Brief facts leading to the appeal or the complaint: I had asked for information on
four points as per the RTI application enclosed. Mr. Prakash Joshi DGM replied on
11 November claiming that CDR cell is a self empowered body set up by RBI by a
circular. Assuming that there may be some lack of understanding of the RTI Act, I
filed a first appeal addressed to Mr. RK Bansal Chairman of CDR cell explaining
how CDR was controlled by government since four (I later learnt it is five) out of
its seven core members are public servants drawing their salaries from government.
Out of its 19 employees 13 are government servants who are also draw their
salaries from government. Thus it is also substantially financed by government.
Unfortunately the same Mr. Prakash Joshi replied that CDR cell is not a public
authority. He did not dispute any of the facts mentioned by me, but implied that
bank officers are not government servants.
7. If the appeal or complaint is preferred against refusal or deemed refusal of the
information, the particulars of the application, number and date and name and
address of the Central Public Information Officer to whom the application was
made and name and address of the First Appellate Authority before whom the
appeal was filed: CDR cell, 19th Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai 400005
8. Relief sought; Please direct the chairman of the CDR Cell to give the information
free of cost and appoint PIO and FAA immediately.
9. Grounds for relief: CDR cell is a Public authority as defined by Section 2 (h) (i)
and (ii). It has been formed by a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of Indiacircular DBOD. No. BP.BC.68 /21.04.132/2002-03 of 5 February 2003 which
among other things states:
3.5 CDR Cell will have adequate members of staff deputed from banks and
financial institutions. The CDR Cell may also take outside professional help. The
initial cost in operating the CDR mechanism including CDR Cell will be met by
IDBI initially for one year and then from contribution from the financial institutions
and banks in the Core Group at the rate of Rs.50 lakh each and contribution from
other institutions and banks at the rate of Rs.5 lakh each.
4.3.1 CDR will be a non-statutory mechanism which will be a voluntary system
based on Debtor-Creditor Agreement (DCA) and Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA).
Thus the CDR cell has been created by a RBI circular and has no independent legal
status except this. Despite having 38 members who are public sector banks and

institutions and only 14 private sector banks it claims an independent status. Five of its
seven core group members are Public sector employees and 13 of its 19 employees are
also employees who are getting their salaries from public sector banks. It is not audited
by anyone and refuses to be accountable to citizens. As per the RBI circular the initial
finance was provided by IDBI,- a public sector bank,- and much over 75% of the
subsequent finance is from Public sector banks and institutions. It is also using the
office space provided by IDBI. Thus I would submit that it is controlled by the
government as well as substantially financed by government. The amount of financing
from the government bodies is essential to its functioning. It is also noteworthy that it
does not appear to have any legal structure and despite being created by a RBI circular,
claims a virtual presence not accountable to anyone. If such an argument is accepted,
all government organizations could create such virtual cells and deny information and
accountability. .
The Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Mr. K.C.Chakraborty who retired in June 2014
had said: (a) Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) mechanism - There has been
major increase in CDR references in the recent period and an exposure-wise breakup
of CDR referred cases shows that big-ticket accounts had a dominant share.
There is enough evidence, to suggest that the provisions of the CDR mechanism
have not been used very judiciously or effectively. While the debtors and creditors seek
the benefits of restructuring, they tend to avoid the painful sacrifices in terms of
provisioning and promoters sacrifice. Such circumvention of norms not only
camouflage the weakness in the credit portfolio of banks but also weaken their defense
against expected losses. The inherent credit weaknesses of such accounts are further
aggravated due to lower stake of the promoters. I would go on to add that the
availability of standing regulatory forbearance in the matter of CDR has prompted
banks to avoid using other means of credit management judiciously. To my mind, the
CDR mechanism needs a thorough overhaul in terms of process, structure,
administration and governance.
According to most reports around 80 to 90% of the restructuring is of borrowers from
Public Sector banks, and the nation does not know the truth about these banks financial
status. The CDR cell has restructured corporate debt of Rs. 3.7 lac crores as per its website
for 505 customers- an average of 668 crores per customer!

I am requesting priority hearing by video conference since I am a senior

citizen,-67 years of age,- and this matter merits urgent consideration lest it
impact the health of the public sector banks and the economy of the nation.
10.Verification by the appellant: I hereby verify that all the information given above is true.
Place:Mumbai
Date: 20 December, 2014

Signature of appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi
former Central Information Commissioner

Second appeal sent to Prakash Joshi, CDR cell by EM615301034IN on 20/12/2014

shailesh gandhi
B2 Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W),Mumbai-400054 ,

Tel: 022 26001003; 8976240798

Email: shaileshgan@gmail.com

Public information Officer,

30.10.2014
CDR cell,
19th Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT, 2005
Sir,
I am citizen India and hence I request you to kindly provide the following information
about the CDR cell during last 2012-13.
1) For the financial year 2013-14, what was the total expenditure incurred by CDR system
and how much out of it was financed by public sector banks and IDBI bank.
2) What are various audits which CDR system has undergone during financial year 201314.
3) For final CDR packages approved between 1.04.2012 to 31.03.2014, please furnish
total sacrifice amount of all public sector banks as reported in the final CDR package
approved by CDR system.
4) In how many cases in the final CDR packages admitted by CDR system between
1.04.2012 to 31.03.2014, a public sector bank that had a negative mandate at the time
of final package had to support the CDR package where supermajority, as defined by
CDR Master Circular, was already reached.
Please provide the aforementioned information in any format which CDR cell deems fit i.e.
in print/ CD/ any other format. I notice that your core group consists of Public servants and
hence your organization is a Public authority since it controlled by the government. Since
the core group members are public servants they are acting as government servants.
I am enclosing the application fee of Rs. 10 with this application by Indian Postal Order no.
10F 654462
Yours sincerely,

Shailesh Gandhi
Former Central Information Commissioner
Enclosed: Indian Postal order

shailesh gandhi
B2 Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W),Mumbai-400054 ,

Tel: 022 26001003; 8976240798

Email: shaileshgan@gmail.com

Mr. R.K.Bansal,
Chairman, CDR cell,
19th Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005
First appeal regarding Request For Information Under RTI ACT, 2005
Sir,
I had requested information from the Public Information Officer of your Institution. Mr.
Prakash Joshi, General Manager has refused to provide the information stating that CDR
cell is not a public authority and hence is not obliged to be transparent.
I would like to point out the RTI Act defines public authority in Section 2 (h) as follows:
public authority means any authority or body or institution of self
government established or constituted,
(a)

by or under the Constitution ;

(b)

by any other law made by Parliament;

(c)

by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d)

by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,

and includes any-(i)

body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii)
non-Government organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
Government;
(emphasis supplied)
Section 2 (h) (d) (i) therefore states that a body owned, controlled or substantially financed
is a public authority. The CDR cell is certainly controlled by the appropriate government
for the following reasons:
1) Your core group has four out of seven members who are public servants and get
their salaries from government.
2) According to my information 13 out of 19 employees of your organization are also
government servants who get their salaries from government.
The core group members and other employees certainly would be representing the
government. Any other assumption would be an unfair slur on their integrity. The core
group members are there because of their positions as government servants and hence
exercise control on behalf of the government. To claim that the appropriate government
does not control the CDR cell would be to negate the truth.
In view of this I request you to please send the information to me and appoint a PIO, if
you have not done this.
Yours sincerely,
Shailesh Gandhi Enclosed: Indian Postal order and my RTI application

1. Index

& Chronology of Events

2. Second Appeal

2,3

3. My RTI application dated 30 October, 2014

4. Reply from Mr. Prakash Joshi, DGM

5. Copy of first Appeal dated 26 November

Copy of Reply to my first appeal:

7.Certificate that matter is not before any tribunal or Court:

I certify that this matter is not before any tribunal or Court.
8.

List of CDR members

9,10

(taken from website-http://www.cdrindia.org/downloads/CDR%20Members.pdf)

9. .Service of copy of appeal to
PIO and Appellate Authority:

(Copy of speedpost recept)

shailesh gandhi

Chronology of events in this appeal:

1. RTI application filed on 30 October, 2014
2. Information denied by PIO: 11 November, 2014
3. First Appeal filed on

28 November, 2014.

4.Rejected by letter dated 9 December, 2014.

5. Present Second appeal filed - 20 December 2014

11

shailesh gandhi
B2 Gokul Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W),Mumbai-400054 ,

Tel: 022 26001003; 8976240798

Email: shaileshgan@gmail.com

I hereby certify that the matter in this second appeal

dated 20 December 2014 is not before any
tribunal or Court

Shailesh Gandhi
20 December 2014