Financial Express: Mumbai: Friday, June 16, 2017.
The
Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner’s office today sought time to
respond to a petition filed by the state government challenging an order of the
transparency panel to initiate inquiry against retired top cop Rakesh Maria in
connection with alleged discrepancies in the 26/11 call records. The state
government had approached the high court challenging a July 2014 order passed
by then State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Ratnakar Gaikwad, directing
the government to institute an inquiry (against Maria) headed by a sitting or
retired judge under the Commission of Inquiry Act. The high court had last week
asked government pleader Abhinandan Vagyani to inform the state CIC’s office
about the petition.
A division
bench of justices N H Patil and Bharati Dangre was today informed by government
counsel Shekhar Naphade that the CIC has been informed about the petition and
it has sought some time to respond to the state’s plea. The bench then posted
the petition for hearing after two weeks. The Commissioner had ordered that the
inquiry be carried out against Maria as to why misleading information was
provided to Vinita Kamte, wife of additional commissioner of police Ashok
Kamte, who was killed in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.
Vinita had
sought call data records of the police control room on the night of November
26, 2008 when 10 terrorists fanned out and attacked various spots in Mumbai.
According to Vinita, the information given to her by the police was fake and
did not match the original call data records submitted by the police before the
court which conducted trial in the 26/11 case. “The commissioner’s office will
have to be apprised of such a petition. We will have to hear their side also
while deciding this petition,” Justice Patil said and posted the petition for
further hearing on June 15.
The state
government, in its petition, claimed that the CIC does not have the powers to
direct the government to initiate an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry
Act. “At the most, the Commissioner can only impose penalty or hold some
officer responsible for not providing information to the applicant,” Vagyani
said. Maria, as then joint commissioner of police (crime branch), had led the
probe into the brazen terror assault and was heading the police control room
for some time during the 72-hour siege in November 2008.
Vinita had
under RTI sought call logs of wireless conversations between the control room
and Kamte’s van in which he was killed along with Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant
Karkare and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar. She had alleged that the
details were first denied to her. However, when the information was provided in
November 2009 and February 2010, there were “serious discrepancies”. Gaikwad,
in his three-page scathing order, had said that the information sought by
Vinita was available but still was “deliberately” not shared and delays were
caused.