The
Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, 08 December 2014.
The Delhi
High Court has upheld an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC)
directing that the information on change in land use of a block in the
diplomatic enclave situated near South Block and Rashtrapati Bhavan here be
disclosed to RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal.
The CIC,
allowing an appeal of Mr. Agrawal, had earlier this year ruled that the
disclosure of information was in public interest, as the land use change
involved issues of environmental standards and urban planning and zoning.
Mr. Agrawal
had sought information from the Union Ministry of Urban Development and Delhi
Development Authority about the decision to allow DLF group subsidiary Edward
Keventer (Successors) Limited to construct a multi-storey residential building
on a 22-acre plot in diplomatic enclave by changing the land use from dairy
farming to residential group housing.
The clearance
for construction by land use change for the property situated at Block No. 48
on Sardar Patel Marg was reportedly given despite security concerns raised by
the Intelligence Bureau, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Rashtrapati Bhavan
officials.
In his RTI
application rejected by the Ministry of Urban Development, Mr. Agrawal had
sought complete information on action taken on the application for land use
together with the related correspondence, documents and file notings mentioning
also the land’s present status. He had also sought information on the
objections raised about the security aspects because of the land’s proximity to
Rashtrapati Bhavan.
After the CIC
allowed Mr. Agrawal’s appeal, Edward Keventer approached the High Court through
a writ petition contending that the CIC had not given it an opportunity of
hearing as required under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Vibhu
Bakhru of the High Court dismissed the petition recently while observing that
the petitioner was called upon by the CIC through a notice to make its
submissions either orally or in writing. Edward Keventer availed of the
opportunity and submitted a letter on March 10, pointing out that Mr. Agrawal
had no stake and was not associated with the property in question.
“In view of
the aforesaid, the contention that the petitioner had not been granted an
opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained,” ruled the Court while dismissing
the petition. However, the Court refrained from considering the merits of CIC’s
decision in allowing Mr. Agrawal’s appeal, as the limited contention raised by
Edward Keventer was with regard to an opportunity to be heard.
.JPG)
.JPG)
