Breaking News
Nagaland Post Logo
You are here:  Skip Navigation LinksHome » Show story
PIL on Tuli Paper Mill
Published on 19 Sep. 2010 1:02 AM IST
Print  Text Size

A detailed and satisfactory reply has been sought from the Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited (HPCL) Kolkata on its earlier reply to an RTI filed by NPPC Workers’ Union vice president, Sentimongba with regard to expenditures incurred for rehabilitation of NPPC Mill at Tuli.
An RTI applicant Chuba Pangit of Alempang Ward Mokokchung has sought necessary information from the Public Information Officer, HPCL on six points to be furnished with supporting documents within the time prescribed by RTI Act. Citing HPCL reply in Clause 2 (a) regarding expenditure of Rs 209.62 lakh on land development and civil structure work, the applicant has soughtthe reasons along with supportive documents as to what kind of civil structure works and land development has been done by the promoter company, HPCL. The company has been requested to furnish the details of the works and land development undertaken with the tender documents indicating the name of the contractor/firm to whom the works was allotted for rehabilitation of the NPPC Mill.
On the HPCL’s reply in Clause 2 (c) that Rs 19.42 lakh was incurred for repairing and maintenance of existing plant and machinery, the applicant has sought detailed reasons along with supporting documents as to what part of machines and plants were repaired.
The applicant has also sought detailed reasons along with supporting documents clearly specifying the period of payments made to the employees of the officers and workers of the paper mill with regard to the HPCL’s reply in clause 2 (d) which stated that Rs 1, 284.73 lakh was incurred for employees related payments.
The applicant stated that the reasons for expenses incurred in Clause 2 (c), (e) and (f) also required further explanation along with supporting documents. Stating that the HPCL’s reply given in Clause 2 (j) regarding expense of Rs 1, 150.60 lakh for technical fee was “abnormally very high,” the applicant has requested the HPCL to provide the reasons along with all supporting and relevant documents by explaining the term ‘technical’ vis-à-vis the fee incurred. Detailed reasons along with supporting documents were also requested with regard to the expenses incurred for security expenses, CSD and VAT and all outstanding dues to the CISF as shown in Clause 2 (g), (h) and (k). The applicant said the information sought was in the interest of public and that Section 8 of the RTI Act 2005 did not exempt the same.

Comments:(0) Login or Register to post your Comment
(Available for registered users only)
More News
  • 1
  • 2