Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: A matter very much conccerns to Larger Public Interest.

Expand Messages
  • Milap Choraria
    ... From: milap_choraria@yahoo.com Subject: A matter very much conccerns to Larger Public Interest. To: rti-times@lists.riseup.net
    Message 1 of 1 , May 14 4:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      --- On Fri, 5/15/09, milap_choraria@... <milap_choraria@...> wrote:

      From: milap_choraria@... <milap_choraria@...>
      Subject: A matter very much conccerns to Larger Public Interest.
      To: rti-times@...
      Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 5:03 AM

      Therefore, please submit your valid legal suggestion to Hon’ble Information Commission to decide the matter considering the larger public interests, since this is an issue of public debate. Immediately after Full Bench Hearing, I also submitted following Email message to Hon’ble Information Commission, taking in to account about the observations made by the some of the Information Commissioners, which possibly reflections of my activities against Indian Black Money in Swiss Banking System, and might be against Smt. Sonia Gandhhi:

       
      --- On Wed, 5/13/09, milap_choraria@... <milap_choraria@...> wrote:

      From: milap_choraria@... <milap_choraria@...>
      Subject: Full Bench Hearing held on today i.e. on 13th May, 2009, in the Complaint Case NO. CIC/AT/A/2007/00628/LS
      To: whabibullah@..., an.tiwari@..., mm.ansari@..., s.mishra@..., sharma.ml@...
      Cc: lcsinghi@...
      Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 7:43 PM

      Sub:Full Bench Hearing held on today i.e. on 13th May, 2009, in the Complaint Case NO. CIC/AT/A/2007/00628/LS
       

      A criminal case was lodged against me and 8 others under section 498A of the IPC and other various provisions of other law. Basic point in this case is that she with malafide intention made a totally false and flimsy claim that she had made payment and expenditure on account of alleged dowry about Rs.35 Lakhs. Therefore, I filed application to disclose details of their Income Tax Returns, which will helpful to me to contradict aforesaid false claims. My contention is that when a person engaged to misuse the platform of the Administration of the Justice, this became a matter of larger public interests, and also when 9 persons from four families were implicated in the case, it also became a matter of public interest. So, according to me Information is liable to be disclosed, under Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. And Income Tax Returns with enclosures are not supplied by Third Parties rather submitted under the mandate of law, so invoking of provision under Section 11 of the RTI Act, is illegal.     

       

      Dated 13th May, 2009

      To,

      Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Shri Wajahat Habibulla,

      Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri  A.N. Tiwari, 

      Hon'ble Information Commissioner  Prof. M.M. Ansari, 

      Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra,

      Hon'ble Information Commissioner  Shri M.L. Sharma, 

      Central Information Commission,

      August Kranti Bhawan,

      Room no. 306, 2nd Floor,

      New Delhi-110066

       

      Hon'ble Sirs,

       

      With reference to the Full Bench Hearing held on today i.e. on 13th May, 2009, in the Complaint Case NO. CIC/AT/A/2007/00628/LS, and in view of the directions made by the Hon’ble Information Commission to Mr. A. K. Sinha and Mr. Dinesh Verma, both Commissioner of Income Tax, CBDT, to submit a Note on the economic effect on the State, if the disclosures of the Income Tax Returns are made. Therefore, in the interst of the principal of natural justice, I may be also allowed to submit my comments on such Note, whenever it may be received by the Hon’ble Information Commission. This is necessary in view of the fact that whatever they may say, in their Note, necessarily may not be correct.  

       

      I may be further permitted to make some clarifications, in view of the comments made by the Information Commissioners. I also submit that before taking a decision, the Hon’ble Information Commission may please take into account my entire Written Arguments dated 23rd April, 2009, which I posted through Speed Post dated 30th April, 2009, and Written Arguments, without annexure and some facts regarding my past activities are also posted in the attachments.

       

      With regards to comments made by Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra that several persons might have been effected through disclosures of the Information collected by Mr. Choraria, I may be allowed to clarify my position that if the Hon’ble Information Commissioner could prove a single application filed by me, that I have filed the same with any malafide object to victimize any one, I will stop filing of any fresh application under RTI Act. This is hereby my undertaking. However, in this respect I must put the facts on the straight record that till now, I have submitted more than 1,000 Application before the different Public Authorities from the Central and State Governments, including 56 before the Supreme Court Registry. With regards to Supreme Court Registry, I was not required to file a single Appeal/ Complaint before CIC, and got very important information, covering in few hundred pages. However, out of aforesaid about 1,000 Applications, I received appropriate Information with regards to my about 600 applications from the levels of the CPIO/SPIO/PIO themselves. However with regards to rest about 400 application, I further received Information after orders in respect of the about 250 first appeals. However, I was compelled to file about 100 Second Appeals/ Complaints before CIC. With regards to my Second Appeals/ Complaints before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari, is concerned, till now my each one Second Appeal / Complaint was rejected/ dismissed by him certainly under his clear biasness, for the reason best known to him. With regards to my Second Appeals/ Complaints before Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Shri Wajahat Habibulla, till now I got satisfactory orders except in one case, which according to me was under human error. The then Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri O. P. Kejriwal ensured supply of Information in my each case. Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri  A. N. Tiwari also ensured supply of the Information in my cases, till now decided by him, except in very few cases, but I cannot claim that any Order was made under any biasness. With regards to my Second Appeals/ Complaints before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri M.L. Sharma, I am still awaiting experiences from his Orders.

       

      With regards to disclosure of the Income Tax Returns and enclosures therewith, I am further submitting that the privacy cannot be a right to withhold all informationat all times. However, does the mere fact that citizens have parted with their income and private wealth information permit the revenue department to disclose such privileged information to third parties? The general answer must necessarily be the negative. But, when a crucial question regarding infringement of other fundamental right, by misusing such right of privacy is arises and conflicts between one‘s right of privacy with the other’s personal liberty a enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, arises in such case, the answer must not be negative, rather affirmative.

       

      Even Section 138 Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowed disclosure of the Information, if public interest so warrants: Said Provision says: “Where a person makes an application to the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] in the prescribed form for any information relating to any assessee [received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act], the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for [***] and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law.]

       

      Therefore even Income Tax Act, 1961, does not place blind bar against disclosure of the Information, wherever, a public interests so warrants.

       

      However, with regards to another comments made by Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Satyananda Mishra during the course of submission that when Information may be available in Courts in due course of the time, why CIC should come into picture, I want to submit a very crucial point directly concerned to State’s Duty to protect liberties of the Citizen, since in my view, aforesaid Comments prompted the Hon’ble Commission to issue a direction to CBDT representatives to submit a Note on the economical effect on State.   

       

      However, In this respect, I may be allowed to say and submit that the protection of Liberties and Lives of Individuals are the Constitutional and Statutory duty of the State, irrespective of whatever may be the Cost. And such duty cannot be compromised by the State, just considering the economic effect on the State. Central Information Commission is also Part of the State.

       

      Protection of Liberties is inclusive of the protection from the harassment etc., as clearly defined by Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution (217 A (III) of 10 December 1948) of the United Nations. Therefore, supply of any Information which can helpful to protect the one’s liberty, cannot be denied just in alleged consideration of the alleged Cost. If the Economic effect to the State would be in Consideration for the Hon’ble Central Information Commission, any ground for the denial of any Information, then I may be humbly permitted to suggest that in such case, Hon’ble Information Commission should suggest to the Government of India, to repeal the very Act, instead of diluting the efficacy of the Right to Information Act, through micro searching of the Provisions, which may helpful to denial of the requisitioned Information.  

       

      I may be further permitted to put a Question, to be examined by the Hon’ble Information Commission, before making its final decision, whether framing of Case against 9 persons form the Four Families, is not a matter of public interest? And what number of people are necessarily dragged in to a case (FIR) to consider it a matter of Public Interests, and to attarct the Proviso provided by Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005? 

       

      In fact, in the respective criminal case, when Ld. SDJM, Howrah, not agreed with the jurisdictional point as was raised by the Police claiming that the incident which was claimed and was aslo basis of the FIR, lodged by the Complainant (Smt. Sushmita Karnawat nee Choraria) was not happened in the Police Jurisdiction where FIR is filed, since they failed to produce any witness to justify the same, and passed the order for Investigation. Under the aforesaid Order of SDJM Police started Investigation and reaches at the house of my Brother-in-law, Howrah , prsumably to arrest them. Luckily he and his wife, (both accused along with me in that case besides my other family members and relations), were not there. As a result, I was compelled to file a Petition before the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court.

       

      With Best Regards,

      Yours faithfully,

       

       

      Milap Choraria

      B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085

       

      Copy to Shri L. C. Singhi, IAS, Joint Secretary and Registrar of CIC. 

       

      Some of the facts regarding my past activities, prior to enactment of the RTI Act:-

      In view of the comments made by some Hon’ble Information Commissioners, I am feeling that I should put the fact about my past activities. Whatever I am submitting here, I am submitting with the affirmation, that I am in a position to produce documentary evidences in support of my each statement, if so required. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is just enacted in the year of 2005. Whereas, I am active since last 40 years against corrupt and corruption and Court is not new for me. I have fought against the Birla’s Hindalco, in which they lost their case finally in the Supreme Court.

       

      INDAL’s Merger was challenged by me at the various levels starting from Company Law Board, MRTPC, High Courts and Supreme Court, and finally the Government was compelled to declare the Scheme of Merger of INDAL with Mahindra and Mahindra, against the national Interest. Resultantly Keshab Mahindra and Late Field Marshal Sham Manek Shaw have to resign from the Board of Directors.

       

      The aforesaid matters were Lead News Items of the Financial Express and Economic Times and during his service in the FICCI if Hon’ble Information Commissioner Prof. M. M. Ansari, could have been studied old records of the FICCI, he must have find my name from the FICCI records. For instance, in February, 1976, during the emergency, even Right to Information Act, was not exists, I make a study of manipulation of Cost by Hindalco and the same was published in the Economic Times in 6 Columns as my Interview.

       

      In or about in 1980, I found some strong evidences of illegal transfer of Money to Switzerland by Hindlaco, and matter was published in the Economic Times and then Industry Minister Mr. T. A. Pai, assured the Parliament to get enquired the matter.

       

      I was never an Communist, but when Mr. Samarjeet Ghosh, Special Industrial Correspondent of the Economic Times introduced me before renowned CPI(M) Member of Parliament late Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu, at the first instance he ignored me considering me as a Marwari. But, when Samarjeet Ghosh being his fast friend ask him to discuss with me any matter concerned to any Balance Sheet. He suddenly become offended and thrown out a Balance Sheet of the Jute Corporation of India directly upon my mouth. I remembered the God and just open one page in which I find a figure of 22 Crores, which was mentioned as over dues over six months. I revert back the Balance Shhet with that page. He initially did not understood that what I wanted to say. But, when I ask him whether he read the Tondon Committee Report, he been immediately understood that I am talking of double finance on the same goods. Then he sited with me for more than three hours and finally called me in his capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Undertaking Committee to give my evidence before it on the particular subject of Jute. Time was fixed for my evidence for about 30 Minutes. Since my entire discussions were held with Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu in Bengali language, so he could not understood that I cannot speak English or actually I was just sixth Class passed person. This initially caused a serious problem for him when I reaches to Room No. 59 of the Parliament House, and Members from South wanted to hear me in English and Members from North (Till then no translation arrangement was there) in Hindi. But when I claimed that I cannot speak English, Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu feels under big trouble. However, my evidences were runs about more than two hours and covered in about 42 Pages. Several Members from Parliament including from South called me on Lunch or Dinner.

       

      In 1994 one of my Chartered Accountant Friend was sitting with one Sub-editor of the Economic Times, who was claiming that Peerless is going to issue 32 Shares against 1 Original Share even after hiding its liability to exploit large public money. My friend introduce me before Sub-editor of the Economic Times, and finally I got and studied the four years Balance Sheets of the Peerless and Lodged a Formal Complaint before the Reserve Bank of India that Peerless is grabbing large amounts pf money of its depositors by misusing the wrong definition of the Deposit. I explained that during the Four Years they hide their liability of 172 Crores of Rupees. Matter was came to Supreme Court and Supreme Court on the same ground as was raised by me, understood that Peerless hidden about Rupees 700 Crores during the aforesaid period of 25 years, and directed it to deposit in Welfare Scheme Account. Resultantly its then Chairman Mr. Sen was compelled to resign.     

       

      During the year of 1975-76, I published details Balance Sheet of Colgate Palmolive with the fact that its then subscribed Capital was just Rs.1.5 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) only whereas Company then was remitting profit dividend to USA about Rs.150 Lakhs, I distributed my document amongst all the Members of Parliament. Matter was raised in the Parliament and then Industry Minister directed to Colgate Palmolive for its Indianisation.  

       

      In my capacity as Members of Sub-Groups of Finance and Raw Materials of the Working Group for 9th Five Year Plan, which was constituted by Planning Commission, I toured whole of India and we get prepared a valuable Report. But I know lobby is working in India on behalf of the Monopoly / Multinational Companies. Resultantly Brief Report was prepared by one Officer, was totally different from our Detailed Report. I alone raised this Point and respected Chairman of the Working Group agreed with my Point. This fact can be verified from the Present Transport Secretary of Government of India.

       

      During the year of 1994 News was published that a German Bank granted a Loan of Rs.100 Crores to NSIC. At that point of time, I was Member of aforesaid Sub-Group of Raw Materials and the responsibility of Sub-Group was upon the NSIC. So regular meeting with the then Chairman was held. During the one such meeting I ask him that in consideration of Loan on the concessional rate of interest from German Bank, the NSIC up to what extent may reduce its lending rate of interest? Chairman of NSIC Mr. Ahmed was a very good gentleman, his reply was negative. When I ask the reason which he refused to disclose. I also not pressed him. However, within few days later I received a Telephone call from him that the Chairman of the German Bank is coming to India and staying in Mourya Hotel. I informed my President in Kolkata and on the day of his arrival, I along with my President was in Hotel. In respect of that Loan eight agencies including FICCI and ICSI were concerned. Initially Chairman of German Bank was surprised and then sit with us in a meeting and after knew about our positions in our Organisations he invited both of us for 15 days German Tour including 7 days Seminars for aforesaid 8 agencies (two Office-Bearer from each Agencies/NGO) I accepted the offer, but not very much interested in the Tour, rather I was interested to know the very point of manipulation that German Bank is claiming that they are giving 40 Years Long Terms Loan at a alleged Concessional Rate of Interests, while NSIC was not ready to reduce it’s the then prevailing rate of interest from 18%. During my discussions, I got the very important clue. But in the meantime Chairman of the German Bank realized that he done a blunder by exposing a very important point, and suddenly claimed that I am from some Investigating Agency and stand up and withdrawn his offer of Tour. After coming to my residence, I served a Notice to the then Finance Secretary Dr. Montek Singh Ahluawalia that according to my report Agreement with German Bank would be tripartite and against the larger national interests. Finally aforesaid agreement was not signed.                     

       

      I participated all the five Pre-budget discussion called by the then Hon’ble Finance Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh. Prior to one such discussion a statement of Dr. Manmohan Singh was appeared according to which he claimed that Banks are suffering huge Losses due to concessional rate of interests on the loan to SSI Sector. I made a Study and President of my Organisation ICSI, arranged a Meeting with the then Hon’ble Finance Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh, with the help of Dr. Ashok Desai. Dring the meeting addl. Banking Secretary was also asked to present. Dr. Manmohan Singh denied that he had made any such statement. However, he heard the study, which was on very basic point that Loan granted to Bank Employees was more than the total Loan granted to entire SSI Sector. Loan Granted to Bank Employees was on the interest rate of 0% to 5% and for the long terms of up to 25 years. In summary I submitted that Banks are subsidizing by the SSI Sector. In the very next day under guidance form the Finance Minister during those days of high rate of interests, first time 1% interest on SSI Sector was reduced.

       

      During those days, considering my activities Dr. E A S Sharma introduced me before his several IAS friend / Officers, even clarifying my Educational Qualification, but he always feels proud with my friendship.

       

       

      (Milap Choraria)

       


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.