Introduction
All of us understand the importance of rules and procedures. However, unfortunately the bureaucrats fail to appreciate the very purpose of such rules and procedures. This is not to say that the rules may be bypassed or not complied with. Here is an instance as to how the approach of a government’s office defeats the very purpose of a prescribed formality.
The unfair instance
Recently an application was made to the Director, Software Technology Park of India (STPI), Navi Mumbai under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for obtaining certain information about their status under the Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. A similar kind of confirmation was already given by STPI in three other cases. The present application was made since it was insisted upon by the tax authorities. This in itself is another problem.
Court fee stamps worth Rs.10 were affixed to the application
After about 15 days, a letter was received from STPI, New Delhi that the payment of fees by way of court fee stamp was not acceptable. They insisted on payment by cash/DD/postal order.
It was then verified from their website that the fee could be paid only by DD or by postal order. There is no mention of cash. The following questions immediately arise:
(a) they could have easily pointed out such deficiency (if at all it is so) at the time of accepting the application itself.
(b) There is no consistency between what is written in the letter and what appears on the website — in respect of cash payment.
(c) Nobody seems to have calculated the value of time, paperwork, etc. wasted in this whole exercise.
(d) The amusing thing is that the bank charges for the DD of Rs.10 were Rs.30. Further, even the STPI authorities sent the same from New Delhi by speed-post, which was again a waste of money.
Incidental
On the same subject, in the context of section of 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there is an Instruction no. 2/2009 of CBDT, dated March 09, 2009 that an approval granted by Director of Industries (STPI) if ratified by the Board of Approval (BOA) is valid. While clarifying this point, STPI office confirmed that the approval granted by them need not be ratified by BOA.
However, in the letter from STPI there was a typographical error. Instead of the word ‘ratified’ it was typed as ‘rectified’. The concerned CIT (Appeals) insisted on a separate confirmation from STPI regarding this obvious typographical error.
The wasteful aspect of this exercise is selfevident.
Conclusion
(1) The authorities should be made aware of the purpose and spirit of the rules.
(2) They should be trained to do a cost benefit of analysis.
(3) They should be made aware that their adamant attitude in waste of national resources.
(4) There should be clarity and consistency at all levels.
