Information denied under RTI- No more in case of Prolonged enquiry

Information denied under RTI

Information denied under RTI

Information denied under RTI- The information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the matter is still under enquiry even after so long. A copy of the report has been denied by the respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee.

Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 21.5.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), Mumbai for not providing complete and satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 19.1.2012.

The appellant has through his RTI application dated 19.1.2012 sought information on the following three queries

  1. Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar wife of the appellant was admitted in the MbPT Hospital on 13.11.2011 and underwent operation on right knee on 16.11.201 and shifted to Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai on 17.12.2011;
  2. The required information is about the report of the enquiry committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011; and
  3. The information in the form of certified copies of the case papers/treatment sheetCase No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474 relating to treatment given to Smt. Sutar during 13.11.11 to 17.12.2011 in MbPT Hospital.”.

The CPIO vide her letter No. H/E/39/9926 dated 18.2.2012 denied information on Point (b) and (c) of the RTI application u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and provided information on Point (c) i.e. summary of the case.

Information denied under RTI

The only issue in the present appeal is about non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within two weeks of receipt of this order.

Here are the discussion threads from our forum regarding the Enquiry report

Posted in Section 8 (1) (e), Section 8 (1)(j)
Tags: ,
2 comments on “Information denied under RTI- No more in case of Prolonged enquiry
  1. Rajnish Kumar das says:

    Thanks sir.valuable infirmation

  2. Nazneen says:

    I have been denied information at the central information commission at New Delhi after the PIO & CPIO of INDIAN BANK CHENNAI failed to give me the requested details ! Even delay in giving such information is DENIAL under RTI ACT ,!

    APPEAL BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    AGAINST
    THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLETE AUTHORITY

    INDIAN BANK
    VS
    M.NAZNEEN

    The Central Information Commissioner Kannur: Dated 21st May 2013
    C Wing@ August Kranti Bhavan
    Bikhaji Cama Place
    New Delhi 110067

    SUB: RTI Application to PIO Indian Bank,Chennai HO on 22-12-2012

    Ref : First Appeal U/s 19 N0 216 of 2012-13/ 2094
    Appellete Authority K.Malathy G.M. (R & L ) Indian Bank ORDER N0 2094 5-3-2013

    With reference to the above application I first got a vague reply from the bank. Then the appellate Authority answered 2 my two queries as under:

    Query
    1. In February 2011 the guarantee WAS ACTED UPON and my property was sold to one Mrs K.Chithra for Rs 28.50 lacs.I wish to know the value and details of the auction.

    2. I wish to have the detailed account statement of this Rs 1 Lac in temperory overdraft (sanctioned for one week on 24-09-90)
    Reply
    The property was auctioned under SARFEASI Proccedings for Rs 28.50 lacs against the upset price of Rs 28 lacs.
    As regards the guideline values please contact the concerned SRO

    As regards the statement of account, Bank had filed a suit in DRT under OA 438/97 in which the statement of account has been submitted.
    Further you have challenged the SAREAESI sale in DRT and the same is pending.Hence the information is exempted under sec 8(1) (j) of the RTI ACT.
    My query (Actual details sought)
    Question 1
    a) The auction on 18-2-2011 did not take place at all. It was a sham –we were present.
    b) The premises was NOT sealed on 26-2-2011 as shown in the documents since an Email received the next day from my tenant said they would be vacating after TWO months !
    c) The auction Purchaser K.Chithra is none other than the tenants relative/staff member and has also failed to file her counter the Sarfaesi Appeal .
    d) The market value of the property was over 45 lakhs as on that date and RBI rules for auction were not adhered to NOR was the owner consulted as per Supreme Court Rulings.

    QUESTION 2
    a) How was a TOD sanctioned for 1 week for Rs 1 lakh on 24-09-90 enhanced and by whom and file notings and sanction ticket details etc .
    b) How was this one lakh TOD on 24-09-90 reflected as Rs 14,63,944 on 31-3-1993 in the statement of the bank filed before the DRT in OA 438/97.
    c) No details of the account from 24-09-1990 (date of sanction) till 31-3-1990 is given as sought for in detail.

    Copy of A Diary Notings on this subject ***
    Banks Failure
    Question 1
    a) No auction took place on that date since we were present. Only an Arakkonam property received over 30 bidders that day and the guarantor property was NOT auctioned !
    b) The possession certificate as on 26-2-2011 was a farcical document.
    c) The auction purchaser was a relative/staff member of my tenant and hence the secrecy and no actual bidding took place on 18-2-2011.We were in the room.
    d) The guidline value is NOT the market value and no independant quotes or the owner’s consent was taken. In fact we were lied to by the Auctioner Sri Hari Rao and their ZONAL AGM.
    QUESTION 2
    a) TOD request letter is for 1 lakh. TOD sanction by the Chief Manager of Thousandlights Br is 1 lakh-endoresed on that letter itself.
    b) 1 week TOD 0n 24-09-1990 should close on 30-9-1990.Who authorised it for another 30 months till 31-3-1993 ?
    c) Details of this 30 months in TOD account is NOT Produced before the DRT and it is a lie that statement of account has been submitted. (Refer A Diary notings of the DRT on this ***)
    OA 438/97 25.4.2013

    DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – I
    6th Floor Spencer Tower, 770-A, Anna Salai Chennai -600002
    Phone : +91-44-284981

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE P.O., DRT-I ON 25.4.2013

    Matter was passed over at the request of the Nodal Officer of the bank as applicant bank counsel was busy in other court. Defendant counsel was present and leave of absence granted to her. Mr. Muniruddin, representing Mr. Mustafa present in person. Earlier, the counsel for the defendant produced a letter received from the Bank through RTI enclosing statement of accounts from the year 1993 with an opening debit balance of Rs. 1,88,000/- . Interest charged is 22.05% per quarter. However, the statement provided is not complete as it does not specify whether it covers the outstanding under packing credit also. Applicant bank counsel submits that having signed the acknowledgement of debts, they cannot raise dispute now. Mr. Muniruddin submitted that when AOD was obtained where the said D4 was bedridden at Cannanore, and through the local manager of the bank . The same was disputed at the initial stage itself. Mr. Muniruddin volunteered to provide photocopies of both debit and credit advices, held in his possession to the applicant bank counsel. Applicant bank to provide, if available statement of accounts covering the years 1989-1993. Call on 14.6.2013.

    My grievance with this reply of the PIO & Appellete Authority are that noth persons are employees of the Bank itself and when asked for specific account the bank has not come forth with the details or the accounts and said that it is filed before the DRT. It is this incomplete set of accounts filed before the DRT that is challenged and even the Presiding Officer has made observations on the bank not producing the ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS pertaining to the period of operation of account reflecting the principal borrowings between 1989 and 1991 when the account was declared NPA . On the contrary the bank has only filed interest statements from 1993 and secured an Exparte Order which is challenged in the Original OA itself. Hence specific details are sought through the RTI ACT .

    Kindly treat this matter with utmost urgency and this appeal before you is within the 90 days limit prescribed under the ACT.

    Thanking you
    Yours sincerely


    M.Nazneen
    D/o Shri M.Panakkat
    N.Mahal House
    Near Manjappalam
    Kannur-670001

    Sent from my iPad

    On 03-Jun-2013, at 10:

    TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

    2ND APPEAL REGISTERED SA/UG/13/7552vgye DATED 21-5-2013 ON CIC WEBSITE

    I HAD SENT THIS MAIL BUT IT WAS RETURNED. NOW ON GOING THROUGH THE WEBSITE I FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT(2ND APPEAL) HAS BEEN RECEIVED BUT APPARENTLY NO ACTION IS TAKEN SINCE A SIGNED COPY IS AWAITED. I SHALL TRY TO COMPLY WITH THIS CONDIITION ALSO AT THE EARLIEST BUT PLEASE DO NOT GIVE ME EVASIVE ANSWERS LIKE THE PIO AND CPIO OF INDIAN BANK DID.

    M.NAZNEEN

    <> <>

    APPEAL BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

    AGAINST

    THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLETE AUTHORITY

    INDIAN BANK

    VS

    M.NAZNEEN

    The Central Information Commissioner Kannur: Dated 21st May 2013

    C Wing@ August Kranti Bhavan

    Bikhaji Cama Place

    New Delhi 110067

    SUB: RTI Application to PIO Indian Bank,Chennai HO on 22-12-2012

    Ref : First Appeal U/s 19 N0 216 of 2012-13/ 2094

    Appellete Authority K.Malathy G.M. (R & L ) Indian Bank ORDER N0 2094 5-3-2013

    With reference to the above application I first got a vague reply from the bank. Then the appellate Authority answered 2 my two queries as under:

    Query

    1. In February 2011 the guarantee WAS ACTED UPON and my property was sold to one Mrs K.Chithra for Rs 28.50 lacs.I wish to know the value and details of the auction.

    2. I wish to have the detailed account statement of this Rs 1 Lac in temperory overdraft (sanctioned for one week on 24-09-90) Reply

    The property was auctioned under SARFEASI Proccedings for Rs 28.50 lacs against the upset price of Rs 28 lacs.

    As regards the guideline values please contact the concerned SRO

    As regards the statement of account, Bank had filed a suit in DRT under OA 438/97 in which the statement of account has been submitted.

    Further you have challenged the SAREAESI sale in DRT and the same is pending.Hence the information is exempted under sec 8(1) (j) of the RTI ACT.
    My query (Actual details sought)

    Question 1

    a) The auction on 18-2-2011 did not take place at all. It was a sham –we were present.

    b) The premises was NOT sealed on 26-2-2011 as shown in the documents since an Email received the next day from my tenant said they would be vacating after TWO months !

    c) The auction Purchaser K.Chithra is none other than the tenants relative/staff member and has also failed to file her counter the Sarfaesi Appeal .

    d) The market value of the property was over 45 lakhs as on that date and RBI rules for auction were not adhered to NOR was the owner consulted as per Supreme Court Rulings.

    QUESTION 2

    a) How was a TOD sanctioned for 1 week for Rs 1 lakh on 24-09-90 enhanced and by whom and file notings and sanction ticket details etc .

    b) How was this one lakh TOD on 24-09-90 reflected as Rs 14,63,944 on 31-3-1993 in the statement of the bank filed before the DRT in OA 438/97.

    c) No details of the account from 24-09-1990 (date of sanction) till 31-3-1990 is given as sought for in detail.

    Copy of A Diary Notings on this subject *** Banks Failure

    Question 1

    a) No auction took place on that date since we were present. Only an Arakkonam property received over 30 bidders that day and the guarantor property was NOT auctioned !

    b) The possession certificate as on 26-2-2011 was a farcical document.

    c) The auction purchaser was a relative/staff member of my tenant and hence the secrecy and no actual bidding took place on 18-2-2011.We were in the room.

    d) The guidline value is NOT the market value and no independant quotes or the owner’s consent was taken. In fact we were lied to by the Auctioner Sri Hari Rao and their ZONAL AGM.

    QUESTION 2

    a) TOD request letter is for 1 lakh. TOD sanction by the Chief Manager of Thousandlights Br is 1 lakh-endoresed on that letter itself.

    b) 1 week TOD 0n 24-09-1990 should close on 30-9-1990.Who authorised it for another 30 months till 31-3-1993 ?

    c) Details of this 30 months in TOD account is NOT Produced before the DRT and it is a lie that statement of account has been submitted. (Refer A Diary notings of the DRT on this ***)

    OA 438/97 25.4.2013

    DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – I
    6th Floor Spencer Tower, 770-A, Anna Salai Chennai -600002
    Phone : +91-44-284981

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE P.O., DRT-I ON 25.4.2013

    Matter was passed over at the request of the Nodal Officer of the bank as applicant bank counsel was busy in other court. Defendant counsel was present and leave of absence granted to her. Mr. Muniruddin, representing Mr. Mustafa present in person. Earlier, the counsel for the defendant produced a letter received from the Bank through RTI enclosing statement of accounts from the year 1993 with an opening debit balance of Rs. 1,88,000/- . Interest charged is 22.05% per quarter. However, the statement provided is not complete as it does not specify whether it covers the outstanding under packing credit also. Applicant bank counsel submits that having signed the acknowledgement of debts, they cannot raise dispute now. Mr. Muniruddin submitted that when AOD was obtained where the said D4 was bedridden at Cannanore, and through the local manager of the bank . The same was disputed at the initial stage itself. Mr. Muniruddin volunteered to provide photocopies of both debit and credit advices, held in his possession to the applicant bank counsel. Applicant bank to provide, if available statement of accounts covering the years 1989-1993. Call on 14.6.2013.

    My grievance with this reply of the PIO & Appellete Authority are that noth persons are employees of the Bank itself and when asked for specific account the bank has not come forth with the details or the accounts and said that it is filed before the DRT. It is this incomplete set of accounts filed before the DRT that is challenged and even the Presiding Officer has made observations on the bank not producing the ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS pertaining to the period of operation of account reflecting the principal borrowings between 1989 and 1991 when the account was declared NPA . On the contrary the bank has only filed interest statements from 1993 and secured an Exparte Order which is challenged in the Original OA itself. Hence specific details are sought through the RTI ACT .

    Kindly treat this matter with utmost urgency and this appeal before you is within the 90 days limit prescribed under the ACT.

    Thanking you

    Yours sincerely

    Sd/-

    M.Nazneen

    D/o Shri M.Panakkat

    N.Mahal House

    Near Manjappalam

    Kannur-670001

    Search Results

    Results for Appeal Number:
    Particulars Description
    Appeal Details / Status
    File Number:
    Appeal Number: SA/UG/13/7552vgye
    Date submitted (Online): 21-05-2013
    Status: Signed copy awaited

    Action-Date: 21-05-2013
    PA / CPIO Details
    Public Authority: others (Finance)
    CPIO Name: –
    Address: –
    Telephone: –
    E-mail: –
    Appellant’s Particulars
    Name: Smt. Nazneen M
    Address: N.Mahal House Near Manjapppalam Kannur
    City: –
    Citizen: Indian
    Country: India
    Email: naazmune@gmail.com

    Search Results

    Results for Appeal Number:

    Particulars Description

    Appeal Details / Status

    File Number:

    Appeal Number: SA/UG/13/7552vgye

    Date submitted (Online): 21-05-2013

    Status: Signed copy awaited

    Action-Date: 21-05-2013

    PA / CPIO Details

    Public Authority: others (Finance)

    CPIO Name: –

    Address: –

    Telephone: –

    E-mail: –

    Appellant’s Particulars

    Name: Smt. Nazneen M

    Address: N.Mahal House Near Manjapppalam Kannur

    City: –

    Citizen: Indian

    Country: India

    Email: naazmune@gmail.com

    [ Back ]

    Designated Officer to Chief IC

    Shri Vijay Bhalla
    Dy Registrar
    Email : vijay(dot)bhalla[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26183996

    Designated Officer to IC(AD)

    Shri G. Subramanian
    Dy Registrar
    Email : gs(dot)manian[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26717351

    Designated Officer to IC(S)

    Shri K.L. Das
    Dy Registrar
    Email : kl(dot)das[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26717353

    Designated Officer to IC(SG)

    Shri Dhirendra Kumar
    Dy Registrar
    Email : dhirendra(dot)k[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26161796

    Designated Officer to IC(DS)

    Shri T K Mohapatra
    Dy Registrar
    Email : tk(dot)mohapatra[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26105027

    Designated Officer to IC(SS)

    Shri D C Singh
    Dy Registrar
    Email : dc(dot)singh[at]nic(dot)in
    Phone : 26186535

    Postal Address :-

    Central Information Commission
    R.No.326, C-Wing, II Floor
    August Kranti Bhavan
    Bhikaji Cama Place
    New Delhi – 110 066

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Information denied under RTI- No more in case of Prolonged enquiry"
  1. […] yet another matter related to enquiry reports can be read here! You can read numerous discussions over our forum here regarding tax evasions, how and where to […]

Add to Story