Capl/1450/2021 Of Tanvi Jain v. Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Prin. Chief Commissioner Income Tax

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1450 of 2021 Applicant :- Tanvi Jain Opposite Party :- Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Prin. Chief Commissioner Income Tax Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Upadhyay,Shivendra Shivam Singh Ra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Misra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicantas well as Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the oppositeparty. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party thatthe writ Court by means of order dated 28.01.2021, passed inWrit Petition No. 2353 (M/B) of 2021, while disposing of thewrit petition has provided as follows :- "Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that thegrievance of the petitioner can be very well looked into by thehigher authorities of opposite party no. 5. The petitioner wouldbe at liberty to raise her grievance by way of a representationbefore the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, MumbaiZone, Mumbai/opposite party no. 4 within a period of ten daysfrom today. In case, such representation is moved, it is expectedthat the opposite party no. 4 will look into the matter and do theneedful in accordance with law, expeditiously." 3. The applicant alleging non compliance of the aforesaid orderhas preferred present contempt petition. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the basis ofinstructions received from the Deputy Commissioner, IncomeTax (HQ) (Vigilance), Mumbai has informed this Court thatPrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai hasforwarded complaint of the applicant to the Vigilance Cellwhich is the competent authority to take action against husbandof the applicant, who is alleged to have accessed theconfidential Income Tax record of the applicant. It has beensubmitted by counsel for the opposite party that in theinstruction letter dated 27.09.2021, it has been stated as under : "Reply to Para 6, 7 & 8 - Ms. Tanvi Jain, the applicant, hasstated that to her reminder letter dated 10.04.2021, she received a reply dated 04.05.2021, from the DCIT (HQ)(Vigilance), Mumbai, informing her that "the representationdated 03.02.2021 has been taken on record and the needful inaccordance with law is being done expeditiously". In thisregard, it is again reiterated that the representation of theapplicant dated 03.02.2021 was forwarded to the ChiefVigilance Officer being Pr. DGIT (Vig.), New Delhi, vide letterNo. PR.CCIT/Mum/Vig./Misc.11/Gaz.A/Pri.Jain/2020/2020-21/362 dated 16.02.2021. Further, the reminder letter dated10.04.2021 was also forwrded to the CVO vide letter No.PR.CCIT/Mum/Vig./Misc.11/Gaz.A/Pri.Jain/2020/2021- 22/50/45 dated 04.05.2021 (copy enclosed - marked asAnnexure-2). Hence the necessary action mandated to be takenby the O/o Pr.CCIT, Mumbai, was indeed done expeditiously. It is further mentioned that the applicant had filed an RTIonline vide Registration No. CCITM/R/T/21/000137 dated19.04.2021, wherein the applicant had raised queries regardingthe status of her representation and action taken by the O/oPr.CCIT, Mumbai. In this regard, she was informed specificallyvide order u/s.7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 12.05.2021 (copyenclosed - Marked as Annexure-3) that the CVC is the Pr. DGIT(Vigilance), New Delhi, in the case of Group 'A' Officers towhom the representation had been forwarded. The applicanthad also been informed that in case she was not satisfied withthe above order she may file appeal u/s.19 of RTI Act, 2005within 30 days, to which the applicant filed no appeal.However, the applicant has conveniently not brought theseimportant material facts which are very critical for decidingthis petition." 5. Considering the fact that matter of the applicant has beenduly forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Officer and also thatdisciplinary proceedings have also been initiated as recorded inthe order of the writ Court dated 28.01.2021. It is noticed thatopposite parties have substantially complied with the order ofthe writ Court and now the matter is pending with the VigilanceCell. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has informed thisCourt that the applicant has moved an application under theRight to Information Act with regard to the steps taken by theopposite parties on the basis of the complaint and on12.05.2021, the applicant has been duly informed about thesteps taken by the opposite parties for compliance of the orderof writ Court and documents in this regard have also beenforwarded to her. Copy of the said information has also beenfurnished to learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Considering the fact that the opposite party has substantiallycomplied with the order of writ Court, it cannot be said that theopposite party now runs in contempt of the order passed by thewrit Court. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Noticeissued to opposite party stands discharged. 9. However, it is expected that the opposite parties shallconclude the vigilance proceedings expeditiously and informthe applicant about the outcome of the same. Order Date :- 4.5.2022A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)