47
CIC /CICI/LS/A/2010/000110/RM
Complaint CumSecond APPEAL
(See the Right to Information Act, 2005)
Index
RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA
102 S F S FLATS DDA, C& D Block Shalimar Bagh
Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110088.
PHONE: 2749-3675, 2749-3664, 98110-79436,
E Mail :
Vs
The Public Information OfficersMrViirender Singh Dhanda
ITO (HQRS) –EXEMPTION
INCOME TAX OFFICE
DIST. COMMERCIAL CENTRE
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092
TELEFAX: 22054779 / Appellate Authority
DIRECTOR –EXEMPTION
INCOME TAX OFFICERoom No 301
DIST. COMMERCIAL CENTRE
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI
TELEFAX: 22054779
S No / Particulars / From / To
1 / INDEX / 1 / 2
2 / List of dates / 2 / 2
3 / Proof of dispatch of present appeal to LD CPIO and First Appellate Authority
4 / Main appeal / 3 / 36
5 / Grounds for the prayer / 4 / 36
6 / Grounds for the relief / 4 / 36
Brief Facts of the case / 4 / 6
Grounds of Appeal / 6 / 15
Proposition one- Third party are Public authority / 15 / 20
Proposition Two- Strong Public Interest / 20 / 24
Reply to exemption claimed by third parties & CPIO / 24 / 36
7 / Chief Justice of India Statement “In India, the rules mostly get confined to the books.” “In other parts of the world, when they frame a rule or regulation, it is strictly adhered to. They are very strict against those who breach it. / 37
8 /
News :Escorts Hospital ready to pay Rs 292.5 Crore to drop lease cancellation proceeding ' sale to Fortis set to get DDA approval
/ 389 /
News :Siphoning of Fund by Dr Naresh Trehan
/ 39 / 4110 /
Extract from High Court decision. That third parties under RTI not providing free medical – agreed at the time of land allotment at concession rate.
/ 42 / 4911 /
Whistle blower statement regarding malpractice in Escorts Hospital.
/ 50 / 5112 /
Summary of Objection by third parties
/ 5213 /
Chart of Help to Society by way of Land at concession cost.
/ 5314 / List of Pending Cases in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA filed by Hospital against decision dt 22/3/2007 of case No 2866/2002 of Delhi High Court to provide free medical care.. / 54
15 / Information Requested - RTI dated 28/10/2009 / 55 / 61
16 / LD CPIO REF: DIT (E) /2009/10/1253 DT 26/11/2009 / 62 / 63
17 / First Appellate order- Appeal Order No 2009-10/1526 DT 21-1-2010 / 64 / 71
18 / First Appellate order- Appeal Order No 2009-10/1526 DT 21-1-2010 / 64 / 71
Delhi
Date 3/2/2010 SIGNATURE
List of Date
1 / I had filed RTI / 28/10/20092 / LD CPIO REF: DIT (E) /2009/10/1253 DT 26/11/2009 / 26/11/2009
3 / First appeal was filed / 23/11/2009
4 / First Appellate authority made decision
2009-10/1526 DT 21-1-2010 / 21-1-2010.
5 / I had preferred complaint second appeal / 3/2/2010
CIC
Second APPEAL MEMO-INFORMATION REQUIRED
(See the Right to Information Act, 2005)
To
APPEALLATE AUTHORITY
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Old JNU Campus,
Block IV, 4 & 5th Floor,
New Delhi-110067
Phone: 011-26717354
Name andaddress of the appellant; / RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA
102 S F S FLATS DDA, C& D Block
Shalimar Bagh
Outer Ring Road,
New Delhi-110088.
PHONE: 2749-3675, 2749-3664, 98110-79436,
E Mail :
2 / Name and address of the Central Public Information Officeragainst the decision of whom the appeal is preferred; / The Public Information Officers
MrViirender Singh Dhanda
ITO (HQRS) –EXEMPTION
INCOME TAX OFFICE
DIST. COMMERCIAL CENTRE
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092
TELEFAX: 22054779
2 A / Particulars of the order including number, if any, against
which the appeal is preferred; / On RTI dated 28/10/2009LD CPIO REF: DIT (E) /2009/10/1253 DT 26/11/2009
3 / Name and address of the first APPEALLATE AUTHORITY
against the decision of whom the appeal is preferred; / Appellate Authority
DIRECTOR –EXEMPTION
INCOME TAX OFFICERoom No 301
DIST. COMMERCIAL CENTRE
LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI
TELEFAX: 22054779
3 A / Particulars of the first APPEALLATE AUTHORITY order including number, if any, against
which the appeal is preferred; / Appeal Order No 2009-10/1526 DT 21-1-2010
4 / Brief facts of the case
Government Authority (namely DDA & LDO of Central Movement allotted land to charitable organization at very concession value with the condition that they will provide certain percentage of their patient -free care. Free care range from 25% to 70%.
However, these charitable organization had not provided free care although agreed in advance by them.
Nor the Public Authority had taken any action against this charitable organization for not complying allotment condition at concession value.
Social Jurist (a group of Lawyers) approach the Delhi High Court to enforce the their patient -free care condition.
Delhi High Court directed the Govt. and these organizations to provide free care. If these charitable trusts fail to comply the free care condition, then confiscate the land given to them. Also recover unjust enrichment made by these charitable organization till now ( by not providing free care to poor).
Delhi High Court has also reduce the free care for IPD from 70 % (maximum ) to 10% for all.
More than 10 Charitable organization gone to appeal in the Supreme Court for the free care condition.
For not fulfilling certain condition of land allotment DDA cancelled the allotment of one Charitable organization (NamelyEscorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Delhi –EHIRC DELHI) . Case went up-to Supreme Court , it is decided by the Supreme Court that action by DDA is valid.
Now, EHIRC DELHI is ready to Pay Rs 292 Crore to DDA for cancellation of recovery proceeding. Whereas in the past, refuse to provide free care to poor although for certain year it surplus is more than Rs 40 Crore, as per EHIRC , it had to incurred 40 Crore on free medical care..
To find out the following facts. I made the RTI request.
Facts one:Are , these charitable organization providing free care as per Agreement?
Facts Two:Are Government justified in recommending the Delhi High to reduce free care to 10%?
1. I made RTI on 28/10/2009.
2. LD CPIO rejected the RTI by reply No F DIT E /2009-10/1253 dt 26/11/2009-
3. I had filed appeal on 7/12/2009.
4. . Respected Appellate Authority hadpartly allowed my request by order number DIT (E) /2009-10/15626 DT 21/1/2010. RespectedAppellateAuthority allowed my first four requests, which are as follows.
1 / Kindly provide assessing office name with designation (complete WITH ward/ circle / range number) and address in which Jurisdiction following Entity / assesee are assessable. (as per list enclosed).2 / Kindly provide Notification’s / order ( if, any and at any time for any period ) - exempting their income under any Subsection of Section 10- to 12 A for the Entity / assesee listed in the list attached
3 / Kindly provide Notification’s/ order ( if, any and at any time for any period ) – giving donation / subscription/ contribution to the Entity / assesee listed attached is exempt(including in part) under Section 80 (G) / any other Section of Income Tax Act, 2005.
4 / Kindly provide Notification’s / order ( if, any and at any time for any period ) - exempting their income under any Subsection of Section 11/ 12/12 A - for the Entity / assesee list attached .
Rejected request for information are as follows.
5 / Kindly Provide the inspection of Assessments Records for A Y 2001-2002 and onward subsequent year for assesee/ entity covered ( for which any notification /order is issued in Point 2 to 4 ) , for which records is available to verify certain information.6 / Kindly provide the copy of documents pointed out at the time of inspection.
My request for inspection is broadly on the following points.
1. These organizations (third parties) are themselves Public Authority , because land allotment at concession cost and surplus held by them by not proving medical care to poor person.. Due to lack of care, poor persons are dying premature unnatural death.
2. These organizations are charitable organization, therefore they should provide their financial detail to their beneficiary. (as per Trust Act).
3. Public Interest clause,( because these (third party) are not providing free medical care- although agreed in advance as per agreement.
The rejection by Appellate Authority for point 5 & 6 is on the basis that this organization is not providing free care to poor patient, - is mere allegation, not supported by hard facts.However, these facts is wrong, I had given full decision of the Delhi High Court , which has accepted various Government committee report , which concluded that these organizations are not providing full free medical care to poor.
Secondly Appellate Authority has not discussed my proposition that third party are Public authority and none of the exemption claimed by third party applicable here and public interest properly.
5 / Brief facts leading to the appealSame as made in point number 4.
6 / prayer or relief sought;
1. Issue direction to give the information.
2. Penalize under Section 20 for delay in providing information, and rejecting inspection on false pretext.
3. Direct Public Authority to maintained records as directed under Section 4 of the RTI ACT, 2005.
4. Any additional prayer as Respected Commissioner found deem fit like compensation etc.
7 / Grounds for the prayer or relief;
For Information
Grounds for appeal
/arguments./ Proposition
My case for getting information is based on Preamble /objective Section 3, Section 2 (H) , Section 4 disclosure, Section 8 (1) d, e & j , Section 8 (2), Section 22 of RTI Act, 2005 Read with section 19 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882( due to which exemption Section 8(1) of RTI act, 2005 is not applicable.
Preamble /objective of RTI Act, 2005
An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 3 of RTI Act, 2005.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. Right to information.
Section 2 (H)
(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) Non-Government organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
4. (1) Every public authority shall—
b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to
give any citizen,—
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Section 8 (2) of RTI Act, 2005.
Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Section 22 of RTI Act, 2005.
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
“section 19 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882,
“Accounts and information :- A trustee is bound (a) to keep clear and accurate accounts of the trust-property, and (b) at all reasonable times, at the request of the beneficiary, to furnish him with full and accurate information as to the amount and state of the trust-property.”