Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'enquiry report'.
Found 4 results
-
Information denied under RTI- No more in case of Prolonged enquiry
rtiindia posted a post in Section 8 (1) (e)
[caption id=attachment_338" align="alignright" width="300] 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 -
The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. It has been CIC consistent stand that feedback should be provided to the appellant once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. Therefore, kindly remember that you have the right to get the broad outcome of the complaint but not the details of the investigations. Blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feedback on tax evasion complaint would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. In the present case too, the CIC ruled that "We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed." Feedback on tax evasion complaint Vide RTI dt 15.5.12, appellant had sought information on 12 points relating to a TEP dt 31.3.11 against Shri Shyam Sundar. It was specified that the information is required for the purpose of appellant’s defence in a criminal trial. 2 CPIO vide letter dt 8.6.12, informed appellant that on the basis of TEP, the case has been taken up for scrutiny for the AY 2006-07 by the IT authorities and till the process is completed, no information can be provided. 3. Appeals was filed on 22.6.12 and 23.6.12. 4. AA vide order dt 17.7.12, directed the CPIO to dispose of the assessment proceedings on priority basis and inform the appellant of the outcome. 5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that there has been a heavy tax evasion on part of his father in law and he has provided complete information on this to the IT authorities. He alleged that the ITO had not done the assessment proceedings in a proper manner and that he had made several complaints to the higher authorities. CPIO submitted that the assessment proceedings have since been completed and submitted to higher authorities. Decision: It has been the consistent stand of the Commission that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the appellant once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed. In a similar case recently posted here: Information givers on tax evaders are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DG IT (Investigations) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers. The CIC ruled that in case of information about tax evaders once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. The appellant submitted that he has not been provided any response by the public authority, leading to the impression that the person against whom the TEP was filed, has ‘managed’ the IT authorities. AA submitted that the process of investigation into the TEP filed by the appellant is still ongoing. - See more at: http://www.rtiindia.org/law/tax-evaders-feed-back-action-authorities-motivate-information-givers/252/#sthash.WjEw1Xlu.dpuf A 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 file tax evasion complaints etc here. Here are also the numerous discussions regarding Exempt organisation and how to obtain information from them.
-
Tax Evaders- Feed back on action taken by Authorities would motivate the information givers
rtiindia posted a post in DG IT
[caption id=attachment_253" align="alignright" width="279] Tax Evaders[/caption] Information givers on tax evaders are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DG IT (Investigations) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers. The CIC ruled that in case of information about tax evaders once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. The appellant submitted that he has not been provided any response by the public authority, leading to the impression that the person against whom the TEP was filed, has ‘managed’ the IT authorities. AA submitted that the process of investigation into the TEP filed by the appellant is still ongoing. Tax Evaders The Commission is of the view that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the information provider once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. This issue had come up in the case of Brij Ballabh Singh Vs DGIT(Inv) Lucknow decided by the Commission on 1.1.2010 in appeal no.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 wherein the Commission had observed: "3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT(Inv) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers.” The ratio of the above case applies to the present appeal also. Once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. Therefore, there is no clear cut demarcation that exempted organisation cannot give information under RTI on the cases which are more than Human Rights and Corruption cases. In the present case, information about tax evaders shall help in bringing follow up of the case with the Government in front of the larger public. -
want to know Enquiry Report for Complaint against Deemed Refusal is just a mere Formality
syedshah1983 posted a question in Ask for RTI Support
QUOTE from Decision of IC-SG " Further, the FAA shall also enquire and send an enquiry report to the Commission containing the reasons for not furnishing and/or the delay in furnishing the complete information by the PIO affixing responsibility and identifying the officer(s) so responsible, if any. Furthermore, if the Complainant is not satisfied with the orders of the FAA, he will be free to move a Second Appeal before the Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. " As per sec. 18(2) of RTI Act 2005, the IC could initiate an Inquiry. When a complaint u/s 18(1) is registered before CIC for Deemed Refusal, it is usually remanded back to FAA in the disguise of section 18(2). Depending on the enquiry report the CIC is required to apply Sec 20. WHY this is not happening ? Enquiry Report for Complaint against Deemed Refusal is just a mere Formality on papers.