Appellant: Infosys has again settled the case that violated California laws for enrolling under B1 visas instead of H1B to avoid payroll taxes under labour laws, including unemployment, disability insurance and employment training - CIC: No intervention
The appellant has stated that Infosys has again settled the case that violated California laws for enrolling under B1 visas instead of H1B to avoid payroll taxes under the State labour laws, including unemployment and disability insurance and employment training. In this connection, he has sought the following information.
1. If Corporate Ministry is acting on delisting the said company, as it dictates other companies to follow similar fraud route of converting India to an outsourced destination. A company named Satyam ended following the same route.
2. As to how such a company has missed an investigation from the Govt. of India?
3. Number of visas granted by US embassy to Brahmins.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The CPIO, MCA submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 20.01.2020. He submitted that through his RTI application he wanted to know the caste demographics.
The CPIO, Ministry of Education in his written submissions dated 28.02.2022 had stated that only point no. 7 was forwarded to them which was thereafter transferred to AICTE on 28.01.2020 and a final reply on this point was given by AICTE on 20.02.2020.
The CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs in his written submissions dated 23.02.2022 had stated that the RTI application was partly transferred to them for providing a reply on point no. 3 only, as the subject matter of the information sought was related to functioning of AMS Division, the RTI application was transferred to the CPIO of that Division for providing the information.
The CPIO, ROC submitted that the RTI application received by them was transferred to SEBI for providing a reply on point no. 1 of the RTI application.
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on points no. 2 & 7 appropriate replies were given to the appellant vide letters dated 19.02.2020 & 20.02.2020. On points no. 5 & 6, vide the reply dated 20.01.2020, the CPIO, MCA asked the appellant to clarify as to what information was sought by him as the points were not clear. On a query to the CPIO as to whether any clarification was given by the appellant, he submitted that no further correspondence was received from the appellant.
It is also noted that points no. 1 & 4 are not covered u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, hence no relief can be given. With regard to point no. 3, the CPIOs present submitted that no such information is maintained.
In view of the above, the Commission does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter as whatever information was available was already supplied to appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Shivaraj v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Registrar of Companies (ROC), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Ministry of Education in File no.: - CIC/MOCAF/A/2020/676437, Date of Decision: 11/03/2022