Premium
This is an archive article published on June 12, 2015

Bombay High Court rejects plea seeking copies of Ajit Pawar’s tax returns

In accordance with Section 11 of RTI Act, a letter was issued to Pawar by the income tax authorities seeking his views on the issue.

ajit pawar tax returns, ajit pawar rti, rti, irrigation project, Ajit pawar, ACB, NCP, questiosn for Ajit, mumbai news, city news, locla news, maharashtra news, Indian Express Former Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar.

The Bombay High Court Thursday dismissed a petition filed by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi seeking copies of income tax (I-T) returns of former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Justice R M Savant said: “The petitioner wants to proceed on the hypothesis that the information sought by him cannot be denied to Parliament. In so far as Parliament is concerned, it has its own rules of business and it therefore cannot be presumed that the information in respect of I-T returns of a member of Legislature would be sought.” The same would be in the discretion of the Speaker, the court said.

Gandhi had sought information about Pawar, who is the nephew of NCP chief Sharad Pawar, from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of income tax department on November 21, 2012. However, the piece of information was denied on the ground that it was related to a third party.

[related-post]

Story continues below this ad

In accordance with Section 11 of RTI Act, a letter was issued to Ajit by the income tax authorities seeking his views on the issue. In reply, he opposed the disclosure of any information.

The CPIO told Gandhi that the information sought by him had no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, it could not be supplied under provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act.

Gandhi’s appeal before the appellate authority was rejected on the same grounds as the CPIO. The Central Information Commission, New Delhi, also rejected Gandhi’s appeal saying he had not been able to prove any larger public interest with corroborative evidence.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement