Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20304
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br /><em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br /><br />The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br /><br />Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br /><br />However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br /><br />Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br /><br />Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br /><br />However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br /><br />On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20304
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br /><em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br /><br />The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br /><br />Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br /><br />However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br /><br />Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br /><br />Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br /><br />However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br /><br />On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680199254bbcd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680199254bbcd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20304,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20446,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20304
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;LUCKNOW: &lt;/em&gt;The Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur&#039;s appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC&#039;s order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister&#039;s office, stating &amp;quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&amp;quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court&#039;s Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi&#039;s son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &amp;quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&amp;quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &amp;quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&amp;quot; The bench also said &amp;quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&amp;quot;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br /><em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br /><br />The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br /><br />Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br /><br />However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br /><br />Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br /><br />Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br /><br />However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br /><br />On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 20304,
		'title' => 'PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
<em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br />
<br />
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br />
<br />
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br />
<br />
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br />
<br />
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br />
<br />
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br />
<br />
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br />
<br />
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 20446,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 20304,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br /><em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br /><br />The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br /><br />Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br /><br />However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br /><br />Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br /><br />Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br /><br />However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br /><br />On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 20304,
	'title' => 'PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
<em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br />
<br />
The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br />
<br />
Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br />
<br />
However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br />
<br />
Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br />
<br />
Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br />
<br />
However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br />
<br />
On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 13 April, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PMO-refues-to-give-information-related-to-Robert-Vadra-land-deal-case/articleshow/19526662.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'pmo-refues-to-give-information-related-to-robert-vadra-land-deal-case-ashish-tripathi-20446',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 20446,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 20304
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi'
$metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,rti,Law and Justice,Corruption'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India

LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.

The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br /><em>LUCKNOW: </em>The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court.<br /><br />The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules.<br /><br />Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating &quot;...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit.&quot; As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of.<br /><br />However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet.<br /><br />Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government.<br /><br />Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself.<br /><br />However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be &quot;false, vexatious and based on hearsay.&quot; The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose.<br /><br />On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said &quot;... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities.&quot; The bench also said &quot;We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it.&quot;</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

PMO refues to give information related to Robert Vadra land deal case -Ashish Tripathi

-The Times of India LUCKNOW: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has denied to provide information on Robert Vadra writ petition filed in the Allahabad high court. The public information officer (PIO) of the PMO denied providing notesheet of the case-related file to the petitioner and social activist Nutan Thakur saying that the matter was sub-judice. To this Thakur, wrote to the first appellate authority (FAO) saying that the RTI Act nowhere prohibits denial of sub-judice information, if not ordered so by a competent court. The petition had been disposed of by the high court on March 7, 2013, and is no longer sub-judice, yet the FAO denied providing the information. He based himself on an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Samir Vijay Zaveri vs CPIO, PMO, where a copy of an affidavit filed by the PMO in Supreme Court was denied under the Supreme Court Rules. Krishan Kumar, director and appellate authority, while disposing of Thakur's appeal stated: ...In this connection, your attention is invited to CIC's order number CIC/SM/A/2011/00216 dated May 7, 2012, in the matter of Samir Vijay Javeri vs CPIO, prime minister's office, stating "...affidavit filed by prime minister of India in the Supreme Court has since become a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and order framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit." As per this decision, where it has been held that an affidavit on being filed in the court becomes part of the judicial record, therefore, all documents related to the filing of the counter reply to the writ petition may as well within the defined ambit of the judicial record. As such, the stand of the CIO, PMO is in the line with the CIC decision. Based on this reason, no action is called for on your appeal and same is accordingly disposed of. However, reacting to it, Thakur alleged that since the PMO does not want real facts to come out in the open, the FAO wrongly took shelter of this case to deny providing even copy of the notesheet. Thakur had in October last year filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench seeking directions for the PMO to order a probe into the allegations of corruption leveled against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and real estate giant DLF. The PIL was filed following allegations leveled by anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal and Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan that Vadra had been hugely favoured by realty major DLF. They had alleged that Vadra had bought property worth crores of rupees between 2007 and 2010 with an unsecured interest free loan of Rs 65 crore given by DLF. However, both Vadra and DLF had then vehemently denied charges and were later given a clean chit by the government. Before filing the petition, Thakur had sent a representation to the Prime Minister enclosing the various allegations made by Kejriwal. She had said that despite specific denials by DLF and Vadra, some of the basic questions remain completely unanswered. One such question is how could a company with an initial investment of Rs 50 lakh be worth Rs 500 crore today. According to the petitioner, it is imperative that the government of India inquires into these serious allegations through Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate and other appropriate authorities. She had also requested for the government to officially release the facts pertaining to the case. Thakur had said since Vadra is the son-in-law of the president of a ruling political party, it is the duty of the government of India to explain itself. However, in its affidavit filed in the court in response to PIL, the PMO had stated that the case of Vadra and DLF is a personal matter between two individuals and is a pure business transaction. And, both parties have already explained their positions and hence the allegations made seem to be "false, vexatious and based on hearsay." The affidavit had accused Nutan of filing the PIL solely based on newspaper reports for political and publicity purpose. On March 7, court dismissed the PIL. It also gave a note of caution to the petitioner and warned her against such frivolous PILs. In its verdict, the court said "... there is no positive assertion by the petitioner regarding infringement of her any legal right nor is there any allegation of violation of any statutory or Constitutional provision... There is also no legal obligation upon the PMO to hold inquiry of any kind into transactions said to have been entered into between two private entities." The bench also said "We are also not supposed to pierce the corporate veil to allow roving inquiry... The PIL is filed with some oblique motive and there is no merit in it."