The Central Information Commission has directed the CBI to quote guidelines underneath which two totally different look out circulars had been issued towards Vijay Mallya, accused in mortgage default of Rs 9,000 crore, in October and November 2015.
The CBI had issued a recent LOC towards Mallya within the final week of November, 2015 asking airport authorities throughout the nation to “inform” it about Mallya’s actions, thus changing its earlier round which had sought detention of the businessman if he tried to go away the nation, sources had stated.
Mallya left the nation in March 2016 for the United Kingdom the place he’s legally contesting the extradition ordered by the British Government.
Acting on a petition by Pune-based RTI activist Vihar Durve, who was denied info by the CBI, the panel directed the central company to quote him laws underneath which look out circulars (LOCs) had been issued in October and November, 2015.
The CBI had cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to disclaim info to Durve.
The part exempts from disclosure of data which might impede the method of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The CBI had issued the primary LOC towards Mallya on October 12, 2015, when he was already overseas, calling for his detention if he intends to go away the nation or arrive right here from overseas.
Upon his return, the company was requested by the Bureau of Immigration if Mallya must be detained as sought within the LOC, to which the CBI stated there was no have to arrest or detain him as he was a sitting MP and there was no warrant towards him, in response to sources.
They stated the company solely wished info on his actions.
Besides, the probe was in an preliminary stage and the CBI was gathering paperwork from the IDBI within the Rs 900 crore mortgage default case. Later one other case was filed towards him, sources stated.
Durve sought from the company guidelines underneath which each the look out circulars had been issued. He additionally had sought different particulars akin to a replica of those circulars, all of which had been denied by the CBI.
In her order, Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani directed the company to offer laws underneath which each the LoCs had been issued by the company.
She additionally directed it to offer a revised reply giving cogent causes as to how Section 8(1)(h) is relevant within the case.
