AWHO Some facts being circulated by email

[Pramod Khanijow]

Hi ALL,
some more facts on AWHO,
lest see if we can stem the rot..
Yash
--- On Thu, 1/7/10, delin mathew <adcutta...@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: delin mathew <adcutta...@yahoo.com>
Subject: VERY VERY IMPAWHO: is it worth it?
To:
Date: Thursday, 1 July, 2010, 3:58 PM
*A friend sent me an email that highlights the inconsistencies with
the Army
Welfare Housing Organisation. The originator of the email, it seems,
is none
other than the former Major General VK Singh who was targeted by the
government for bringing out the misdeeds in the R&AW. *

*After having spent 37 years, I am not very comfortable writing this.
As a
rule, we don’t criticize our own profession, or anything connected
with it.
That is the credo of the soldier, which sets him apart from others.
But now
that the Army has disowned the AWHO – yes disowned is the right word –
I
think it is time to speak out. *

*The AWHO was created in 1978, with the avowed aim of providing houses
to
Army personnel at low cost. The scheme, when it began, was modeled on
a
scheme that existed in the Pakistan Army, wherein a fixed sum of money
was
deducted from the salary of a soldier, so that he could be given a
house
when he retired. The AWHO was formed with a similar scheme in mind,
called
the long term scheme. I still remember the thrill we felt when the
scheme
was announced by the COAS on Army day. I was posted in HAA and heard
the
news on my transistor. Most officers and men joined the scheme and
amounts
varying form Rs 50 to Rs 200 began to be deducted from their salaries.
To
cater to those who had between 5-10 years service left, there was also
a
short term scheme, where the contributions were higher. This continued
for a
few years. Then, to help those who had just one or two years service
left,
the spot scheme was started. Later, the long and short term schemes
were
scrapped, and only the spot scheme survived. The AWHO became like the
DDA,
or any of the State Housing Boards. (I have often wondered why they
still
have the ‘W’, since there is no welfare now. The Air Force and Naval
Housing
Boards don’t profess to be welfare organisations, through they are
more
transparent) . *

*According to its charter, as given on its web site (www.awhosena.
org), the
AWHO functions on ‘No Profit No Loss’ basis. However, this is not
entirely
true. Sadly, the AWHO has become a den of corruption and is fleecing
soldiers – harsh words, but true – who are naïve and have little time
to go
into details. Those who try run into a wall. *

*The AWHO and Right to Information Act *

*• Attempts by members to get any information are stone walled by the
AWHO
which contends that it is not covered by the RTI Act since it is a
‘private
society’, registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860.
(This
is laughable. The AWHO is located in Army accommodation in Kashmir
House,
alongside the E-in-C’s Branch of Army HQ; it has many serving
personnel
posted or attached to it; it is run by an executive committee of which
the
Adjutant General is the ex –officio chairman). *

*• In a hearing held on 10/10/08 on an appeal filed by Maj Gen VK
Singh, the
CIC accepted the plea of the AWHO that it is a private society
registered
with the Registrar of Societies Delhi. In support of their arguments,
AWHO
submitted a statement of the MoS, Defence, Shri Arun Singh before the
Lok
Sabha. The Minister had stated:- “As far as the first part of the
question
is concerned, no, it is not part of the Government. It is a society
registered under the Societies Act. Regarding the second part of the
question, the full time Chairman and all the members of the board of
management are ex-offcio. There is no individual as such as Chairman.
The
Chairmanship rotates as postings are changed. As far as meeting of
the
general body is concerned, in this particular society, as registered
under
the Societies Act, there is no such thing as the general body. It is
the
board of management that runs the society. There the members meet
regularly,
once year minimum. And as far as complaints are concerned, we are not
a in a
position to intervene in their functioning directly. We do, however,
if
there are any complaints, pass on the same to the society.” *

*• Though the CIC upheld the plea of the AWHO that is not a public
authority, in his order he added:- “That the Adjutant General’s Branch
of
the Indian Army can access the information pertaining to AWHO was
admitted
by the CPIO in answer to a direct question in the hearing. The
appellant may
also seek information concerning the AWHO through the Registrar of
Societies
by filing a fresh application under the RTI Act provided such
information is
legally accessible to the Registrar under the Societies Registration
Act
cited above, concerning AWHO. The appellant has the right u/s 2(j) to
seek
any information available with Army headquarters and the concerned
CPIO will
be obliged to provide all available information in their custody.” *

*• Maj Gen VK Singh applied to the Registrar of Societies seeking
information under the RTI Act on 31/10/08. The reply is very
interesting.
The AWHO was registered under the Societies Registration Act vide
Registration No. S-9142 on 23/3/1978. The main file of the society is
missing since long hence the name of the applicant is not available in
the
record. This is not all. The AWHO is not filing the list of governing
body
members – this is mandatory – no such list is available in the record
after
1998. There is no record of the AGM being held, elections of office
bearers
and accounts. *

*• An application addressed to the MOD asking for information
regarding was
facilities such as accommodation, transport, manpower provided to AWHO
was
transferred by the MOD to Army HQ, which in turn sent it to the AWHO.
As
expected, AWHO has refused to provide the information, quoting the
decision
of the CIC that it is not a public authority and does not come under
the
provision of the RTI Act 2005. *

*• Recently, in another RTI case, the Army had contended that it has
nothing
to do with the Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA). It now says the
same
thing about the AWHO. Will it also wash its hands of the Army Welfare
Education Society (AWES) and the Ex-Servicemen Central Heath Scheme
(ECHS)?
*

*Some Interesting Facts *

*• The AWHO recovers the cost of land as well as construction in
advance.
Hence 100% of the cost of the houses is recovered several years before
the
house is handed over. So, in effect, the AWHO does not spend any money
of
its own, and owns neither the land nor the houses its builds. Its
status is
that of a builder, who constructs the houses on behalf of the members,
using
their funds. Yet, it insists that a conveyance deed is executed after
the
house is handed over. This results in payment of double stamp duty by
the
members for the land; once when AWHO buys the land from the original
land
owner (using their funds) and again when AWHO transfers the houses to
them.
*

*• Members of several housing societies in NOIDA, including AWHO and
Air
Force and Naval Housing Board, (AFNHB) filed a case against the
Ghaziabad
Development Authority (GDA) in the Allahabad High Court. In a judgment
dated
14/10/2004, Justices Markandey Katju and Sunil Ambwani ruled that the
members, ‘being owners of the flats/apartments, could not be compelled
to
enter into the sale of the flat which is already owned by them and to
enter
into any fresh terms and conditions of allotment of such flats/
apartments
which are not agreeable to them.’ Since this involved the refund of
several
hundred crores recovered by them as stamp duties, the GDA has appealed
in
the Supreme Court. The case has still to be decided. Registration of
conveyance deeds in NOIDA has been stopped, but AWHO continues to
follow
this procedure in other stations. *

*• In the conveyance deed, the AWHO mentions that the dwelling unit is
‘free
hold and free from all encumbrances, claims, encroachment, demands,
dues,
liens, mortgage, decrees, litigations, prior sales, agreement to sell
etc’.
However, it stipulates that the new owners can neither sell the flat,
nor
give it on rent without its permission. This is not only contrary to
the
Transfer of Properties Act but also the ruling of the High Court
quoted
above. *

*• The AWHO transfers only the dwelling unit and not the proportional
share
of the land, which the member has already paid for. This is contrary
to the
Transfer of Properties Act as well as the Apartment Owners Act. The
latter
stipulates that within 90 days of completion of the project, the
builder
should file a declaration with the State Urban Development Authority,
giving
details of the number, size, value and proportionate share of land
and
common facilities of each apartment owner. Apartment owners are
required to
execute a deed of apartment, on which no stamp duties are required to
be
paid. *

*• The AWHO has offered to transfer the title of the land to the RWAs
provided they pay the stamp duty. This will mean that the members will
pay
stamp duty thrice, for land which had been purchased by them in the
first
instance. As a result, very few RWAs have agreed to do this, and the
title
of the land continues to be with the AWHO. *

*• If a member wishes to sell the flat, he has to apply to the AWHO
for an
NOC. The AWHO charges Rs 10,000/- from the Seller as well as the
Buyer. To
justify the recovery, the buyer, even if he is civilian, is made a
member of
the AWHO. The new buyer has to give an undertaking that he will not
sell or
rent out the flat without permission of the AWHO. In effect, it
ensures that
the AWHO makes Rs. 20,000 every time the flat is sold, in perpetuity.
There
is no record of the amount recovered by AWHO so far on account of
such
sales, but estimates range between 100 to 200 crores. *

*The AWHO and the Consumer Protection Act *

*• The AWHO indulges in several unfair practices, even falsifying
records.
In an attempt to prove that its houses are cheaper than those
available in
the market, it only mentions the covered area of the flats, without
giving
details of the carpet area, wall area or common areas. For example,
the
covered area of the three bedroom flats in Devinder Vihar, Sector 56,
Gurgaon is stated to be 1410 sq. ft. in the possession certificate as
well
as the conveyance deed. In response to an RTI application, the Haryana
Urban
Development Authority (HUDA) has confirmed that the covered area is
just
1269.12 sq. ft. There is thus a shortfall of 144 sq. ft. or more than
10%. *

*• The main reason for the shortfall is that the AWHO counts 100% of
the
area of balconies while computing the covered area. The industry
norm,
followed by MES, AFNHB and private builders is 50%. This is also the
figure
given in E-in-C’s Technical Instruction No 13 of 1970. *

*• Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd) had filed a case in 2003 in the Delhi
State
Consumer Commission against the AWHO for the shortfall in the covered
area.
In a judgment delivered on 20/01/2009 the Commission has ordered the
AWHO to
refund Rs 25,000 for the shortfall, in addition to a penalty of Rs
50,000.
If anyone wants a copy of the complaint, he can send an e-mail to
vinay4... <http://groups. google.co. in/groups/ unlock?hl= en-
GB&_done=/group/ forces-network/ msg/c1fe27fc7596 96ed%3Fhl% 3Den-GB
%26&msg=c1fe27fc759696e d> @gmail.com. You can get a copy of the order
from the website of the
Commission delhistatecommissio n.nic.in. The case No is 12/03. *

*Conclusion *

*In a nutshell, the AWHO is a law unto itself, accountable to nobody.
The
Army has already washed its hands of the AWHO – it should not have,
but it
has – and the Registrar of Societies has confessed that he has no
control or
information about its activities. The common soldiers – officers, JCOs
and
OR – feel that it is an Army set up, which will look after their
interests.
Is this not a case of breach of trust? I felt the same when the
military
hospitals stopped treating ex-servicemen, and palmed them off to the
ECHS. I
always believed that the bonds one forms in the Army are for life and
continue even after one stops wearing the Olive Greens. One by one,
these
bonds appear to be breaking, or cut away. After the AWWA and the AWHO,
will
the AWES and ECHS follow suit? And the RSIs and DSOIs? *

*The Right to Information has brought these dark secrets of the
non-operational aspects of the army into the open. Judging by these
incidents, things can’t be much different in other operational
aspects.
While the ruse of National Security provides a perfect cover-up for
the
deficiencies in operational aspects, an ignorant political class, an
inept
bureaucratic setup, an inefficient media and a feudal military brass
only
reinforce the Holy Cow image of the armed forces. Is there a
reasonable way
out?*