Jump to content
  • Sign in to follow this  

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


    rtiindia

    [caption id=attachment_338" align="alignright" width="300]Information denied under RTI Information denied under RTI[/caption]

     

    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

    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;

    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

    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 © of the RTI application u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and provided information on Point © 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

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    […] 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 […]

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy