Need to Lunch a Strong Public Movement with regards to appointment of the Information Commissioners, considering whether Prof. M. M. Ansari is Information Commisione ror Disinformation Commissioner?
Milap Choraria
Need to Lunch a Strong Public Movement with regards to appointment of the Information Commissioners, to ask the Government to strictly obey the Section 12(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which says that they shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
In last two days, on 12th and 13th May, 2009, I gained a new experience very much directly concerns to the appointment of the Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission vis-à-vis State Information Commissions.
Two Full Bench Hearings were held in respect of the matter relating to (1) open corrupt practices prevails in the Income Tax Department to protect Big Tax Evaders and for this purpose if some one raise the issue concerned to any corrupt practices, same person should ready to get insulted; and (2) whether some one can misuse his protected rights to black mal others. Before, I come to the point, I must mention about my experiences from the respective Information Commissioners.
I know that after publishing this message, I cannot hope for Justice from the CIC.
General remarks, on the Information Commissioners, and their working under Pressure from the Central Government.
Mr. Rao, from the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Department of Personnel and Pension, joined earlier in the Full Bench Hearing and also attended on 12th May, 2009, during the Full Bench Hearing. But his changed body language from earlier Hearing besides the Body Language of Mr. K. S. Achar and Mr. B. B. Bhardwaj, from the Cabinet Secretariat clearly indicating that if possible they were ready to digest me, obviously for the very reasons of my activities against Black Money deposited by Powerful Politicians of Country in Tax Haven Countries and also issue raised by me relating to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi. Therefore, there is every possibility of serious lobbying from these Departments upon the Information Commissioners against me.
CIC Shri Wajahat Habibulla:
In view of overall orders passed by him in my cases and body languages, as I have also seen during the aforesaid two days Full Bench hearings, I have seen him as a balanced person tilting towards disclosures, if law permits. However, from one Order relating to Smt. Sonia Gandhi, I was not satisfied with his Order. However, in India even Judiciary cannot claim that each and every Judge is acting judiciously. Therefore, in view of present set of mindset of the Bureaucracy, it can be covered within the meaning of the Human Error. Otherwise, I don’t see that he is against disclosures, if law permits.
IC Prof. M. M. Ansari:
This has been my experiences during the fight against the Unfair Distribution of Aluminium Policy, adopted by its producers as well as during my stint as the Honorary General Secretary of Indian Council of Small Industries that Monopoly and Multinational Houses are always engaged in very actively lobbying in the Government circle, to pursue their sole vested interests. The FICCI is a body created by Late Shri G. D. Birla, on whose behalf as then Chairman of Hindalco, a legal Notice was served upon me, from a renowned Mumbai Law firm, after I disclosed some crucial information relating to their manipulations. Prof. M. M. Ansari was in FICCI and I would not be surprised if his appointment has some links, may be very remotely, with the aforesaid lobbying from the FICCI people. My impressions gained from the experiences, I had with Prof. Ansari, that he is working less for the promotion of the cause of the supply of Information and more to prevent and obstruct the flow and supply of the information. On the basis of my experiences, through Orders passed by him, I have found him using his ingenuity to protect the Corrupt and the act of Corruption. He is misusing the weaknesses and shortfalls and or the loopholes in the Right to Information Act, 2005, to push the aggrieved person to go to the High Court, if one is not satisfied with his whimsical Orders, instead of applying his mind as an Information Commissioner.
For instances, I have seen that in respect of the matter directly relating to the disinvestment of Centaur Airport Hotel, Mumbai, he passed such Orders which reflects that it is to protect disclosures of the Information. In the instant case, Bank of Punjab Limited (Now it is part of HDFC Bank) was granted a Loan of Rs.5 Crores to a family against the old Vehicles. I have the entire list of all the vehicles that are covered in the Loan Process. The entire loan process is based on manipulation which is a very serious matter and very much involves a matter of public interest, as this involves huge funds of Public Money. At the time of Loan Process, in some cases, the valuation as Market Value was falsely created by up-marking it more than 20 times than that of the Book Value.
For instance I am referring one List of Vehicles in which claims that market value as well as Value estimated by Surveyor were described as Rs.1,40,00,000.00 while as per Balance Sheet of the Borrower for the relevant period, the Book Value is shown at just a meager amount of Rs. 11,66,265/-, of the corresponding Vehicles, giving rise to serious doubts, that the Bank as well as respective Valuer, have colluded to gather with the malafide intention to act in such a way as to jeopardise the very interest of the depositors and Investors of the Bank of Punjab Limited.
|
Vehicle No. |
Model / Make |
Capacity M. T. |
Value as per alleged Surveyor Rs. In Lacs. |
Value Shown in the Balance Sheet under heading Assets under sub-heading Vehicles, for the year ended 31st March, 2001. Rs. |
Alleged Market Value as per Borrower Rs. In Lacs. |
|
HR-29-8138 |
1990 Leyland |
18 |
7.0 |
85,103 |
7.0 |
|
HR-29-8139 |
1990 Leyland |
18 |
7.0 |
85,314 |
7.0 |
|
HR-29D-0646 |
1993 Telco |
18 |
8.0 |
26,037 |
8.0 |
|
HR-38-0861 |
1993 Telco |
18 |
8.0 |
1,233 |
8.0 |
|
HR-38-0860 |
1993 Telco |
18 |
8.0 |
1,233 |
8.0 |
|
HR-38-7670 |
1995 Telco |
18 |
9.0 |
12,025 |
9.0 |
|
HR-38A-0470 |
1995 Leyland |
18 |
9.0 |
20,597 |
9.0 |
|
HR-38B-2538 |
1997 Telco |
18 |
10.0 |
20,597 |
10.0 |
|
HR-38C-9487 |
1999 Leyland |
18 |
11.0 |
15,332 |
11.0 |
|
HR-51GA-1264 |
1998 Leyland |
11 |
8.0 |
27,002 |
8.0 |
|
HR-51GA-1265 |
1998 Leyland |
11 |
8.0 |
49,805 |
8.0 |
|
HR-38C-9420 |
1999 Leyland |
11 |
8.5 |
53,507 |
8.5 |
|
HR-38C-9481 |
1999 Leyland |
11 |
8.5 |
30,884 |
8.5 |
|
HR-38E-2372 |
200 Leyland |
11 |
10.0 |
2,62.547 |
10.0 |
|
HR-38E-2373 |
200 Leyland |
11 |
10.0 |
2,62,502 |
10.0 |
|
HR-38E-2374 |
200 Leyland |
11 |
10.0 |
2,62,547 |
10.0 |
|
Total |
|
|
140.0 |
11,66,265 |
140.0 |
Therefore, with this background, I wanted from the Reserve Bank of India the “information” relating to the Price of the Vehicle, Manufacturers had put at the time of Purchase of each of those 16 Vehicles against which Bank of Punjab Limited, Green Park Extention Branch had sanctioned Rs.75,00,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs) (seven times than Book Value) in favour of Mrs. Mahesh Kumari Batra, vide Letter No. BOP/GP/LA/….2002 dated 31st January 2002, against the claim of market Value as well as value estimated by Surveyor stated to be Rs.1,40,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs), since under Section 27(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, empowers the Reserve Bank of India to direct the Bank of Punjab Limited to furnish any information within time specified by the Reserve Bank of India for all information relating to the business or affairs as the Reserve bank of India may consider necessary; and under Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Ac, 1949, every employee including its Chairman, Managing Director, Director or Manager of any Banking Company shall be deemed as the Public Servants for the purposes of Indian Penal Code. Similarly I also submitted two other applications and all three applications became subject matter of single Appeal before the CIC. Prof. Ansari during the hearing observed that Mr. Rakesh Mohan, Dy. Governor of the Reserve Bank of India , had met him. He made the aforesaid observation without giving any context and summarily dismissed my Appeal, as he did not find any thing in the appeal that concerns Public Interest.
Photocopies of the other documents suggest that a Loan of Rs.83 Crores was sanctioned in favour of the bidder for the Centaur Airport Hotel, Mumbai, by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, with terms that the Borrowers would place 30% margin Money against the disbursement of Loan. However, reports suggest that the disbursement of the loan was just against the deposit only Rs.8 Crores, which included the aforesaid Rs.5 Crores, received from Bank of Punjab Limited, against the aforesaid inflated Market Value of the Vehicles. Hence, I wanted date wise information relating to the amount deposited by M/S. Batra Hospitality Private Limited, having their Registered Office at E-42/3, Okhla Industrial Area, phase-II, New Delhi-110020, on account of margin money, against the disbursement of Term Loan of Rs.80,00,00,000.00 (Rupees Eighty Crores) and working capital of Rs.3,00,00,000.00 (Rupees Three Crores), sanctioned by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Credit Administrative Department, Harsha Bhawan, E- Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001 on 1st April 2002, to purchase Centour Hotel/Airport Mumbai from the Hotel Corporation of India belonging to Air India and schedule of repayment received with dates and amounts. My Appeal was again rejected as it was listed before Prof. Ansari.
I had also filed an appeal against the non-supply of the information, by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, even after having taken Rs.9,000/- (round about) for the supply of the photocopies of about 4,500 Pages, relating to Centaur Airport Hotel Mumbai. However, after having a second thought, they returned the money and refused to supply the Information on the pretext that first they have to submit the CBI Report to the Parliament. I have my own doubts about their such pretexts. In the aforesaid matter vide Case No. CIC/MA/A/2009/000095, the date for hearing was fixed on 16th March, 2009. On that date Prof. Ansari, could not come to the CIC office till around 1.30 P. M., perhaps due to delay in the Train, he was traveling in from Varansi, as was told by the CIC Office Staff. When at about 2.00 P. M. the turn came of the above listed case, Prof. Ansari observed that since he is pre-occupied with some urgent meeting, hence so the matter will be fixed for hearing for some other date. But, to my utter surprise, contrarily to what he had observed when the time had come for hearing, as stated above, I received copy of the alleged Order dated 6th April, 2009, which is suppose to have been passed obviously by misusing the Office of Hon'ble Information Commissioner, in the above numbered Case under Decision No. 3854/IC(A)/2009, in which Prof. M. M. Ansari falsely interalia recorded in the Order that “In the course of hearing, it emerges …” .
On 24th July, 2008, I submitted an Application under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005, to Dr. Ashok Haldia, Secretary, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002, contending therein that “Since in your Website name of CPIO is not disclosed, as such I have no other option, but to submit this application directly to you. before lodging any formal complaint, and taking any legal action against Mr. Ashok Kumar Tuldsiyan FCA, Kolkata, I am trying to collect true facts, about some rumours , which may cause serious disrepute to the mission of ICAI that“Indian Chartered Accountancy Profession will be valued trustees of World Class Financial Competition, Good Governance and Competitiveness,” .” and that “Mr. Ashok Kumar Tuldsiyan FCA, Kolkata, appeared before the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata, not concerning to a matter of Accountancy, but directly concerned to the matter of serious violation of law, in which punishment of the violator is must, and also concerned to corruption committed by respective Public Servants, in manipulating the concerned Report relating to Search and Seizure, to save black money of more than Rs.100 Crores. During my private enquiry, I heard the unidentified rumours that Mr. Ashok Kumar Tulsiyan, at the cost of basic Mission of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) that the “Indian Chartered Accountancy Profession will be valued trustees of World Class Financial Competition, Good Governance and Competitiveness,” engaged as one of the Touts to arrange settlement between the respective Private Parties and Income Tax Raiding Party. In fact he appeared on behalf of one Kolkata Land Mafia, who is engaged in various criminal activities to garb public and private properties, and Mr. Tulsiyan, in the manner of an Advocate, defended him by pleading before Mr. M. R. Panigrahy, Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata, in a matter of Appeal filed by me, under Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005, wherein he submitted interalia that “complainant has personal vendetta against his client and if Information are passed on to the Complainant, he may cause inconvenience and harassment to his client and drag them to legal litigation”, which no way can be covered within the scope, meaning and ambit of the profession of Chartered Accountants. He cannot claim that he had obtained all related true information about me and my activities, or alleged my personal vendetta, from his client. It is further rumours in Kolkata that under “Touts Rivalry”, between his Group and another Group headed by Shri S K Tulsiyan, FCA, he was instrumental for arrest of Mr. S. K. Tulsiyan, another FCA, along with his Client, one Member of Income Tax Tribunal and one more person along with Rs.30 Lakhs in Cash.” thus I wanted to know that whether Mr. Ashok Kumar Tulsiyan, FCA, of P-8, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, had obtained any permission from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, to engage himself in any other business or occupation, which not within the scope, meaning and ambit of Profession of Chartered Accountants, under [THE FIRST SCHEDULE] [sections 21(30, 21A(3) and 22] PART I Clause (11), and if so, kindly supply certified copy of his application and permission letter granted to him.
With reference to aforesaid application I filed a Complaint against the Institution of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI), and during the first hearing of the Complaint, Prof. Ansari ordered for supply of the requisitioned information after examining the provision under Section 11 of the RTI Act. But subsequent letter received from the ICAI, is indicating that some illegal Order has been passed behind my back of which I have no knowledge, by Prof. Ansari. However, still I am awaiting response relating to my application for non-compliance of the Order in the matter. However, if any order contrary to his earlier Order is passed in the matter, as indicated in the Letter from the Institution of Chartered Accountant of India, the same must have been passed under some corrupt practice.
That on 14th November, 2008, I submitted an application u/S 6 of the RTI Act to the General Manager /ED & Central Public Information Officer, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (DSIDC), contending therein that “My son being the Member of my joint family, on 27th March, 2008, submitted application No. 4749 along with Pay Order of Rs.44,406/- against Money Receipt No. 38452 dated 27.0.008, as transfer fee for Outright transfer of the Industrial Shed No. Z-12 Mangolpur 180. But, till date no communication is received from your office.” Thus wanted to know the status of the same application. They refused to supply requisitioned Information. So I filed Appeal and Second Appeal. However, I wanted to settle the matter at earliest, as such a subsequent application after three months there from, dated 14th February, 2009, through my Son wanted detail chart of payment received by DSIDC, which we received. But most surprisingly Prof. Ansari misusing his powers and abusing his authority defined me as misuser of the RTI Act, and seek help from general public saying that “Such frivolous appeals should be discouraged. Can any one educate such mis-users of RTI Act? Or to inform as to what this Commission can do under the law to stop vexatious applications.”
During the Full Bench Hearing held on 12th May, 2009, Prof. Ansari by misusing and committing contempt of his own Office as Information Commissioner, tried to create a new definition that I am not an Information Seeker, giving clear impression that he is stoutly proactive as a “Disinformation Commissioner” to protect the Corrupt and the Corruption.
With regards to my first experience from Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra, I have already pointed out in my earlier message addressed to all the concerned Hon’ble Information Commissioners, which I also posted in the List for public debate considering importance of the matter.
Milap Choraria
--
My Logo
TRUTH SHALL ALWAYS PREVAIL
Milap Choraria
:National Convenor : Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)
http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp