Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Anjali Seth - Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commission & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5585 of 2015 & CM No. 10041 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Deepak Agarwal
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Central Information Commission to consider the petitioner's contentions and provide a reasoned order when denying information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Information Denial - Section 2(f), Section 19 - The court discussed the petitioner's request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the denial of the same by the Central Information Commission. The court highlighted the failure of the CIC to apply its mind to the controversy and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the CIC for a reasoned order within a specified time frame.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information regarding the allotment of a property under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Central Information Commission denied the request, stating that it was not conclusively established as to who was the rightful owner of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CIC failed to apply its mind to the controversy and passed the impugned order in complete ignorance of the facts of the case. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CIC for a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks.
Issues: The denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the failure of the CIC to consider the petitioner's contentions and provide a reasoned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CIC failed to apply its mind to the controversy and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the CIC for a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the CIC to consider the petitioner’s application and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. None for the respondents. Notice in this petition was issued on 29.05.2015 and four weeks” time was granted to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. On 06.05.2016, a final opportunity was granted to the respondents to file the counter affidavit within a period of one week from that date and it was clarified that failing the same, their right to file the counter affidavit would stand closed. However despite sufficient time, no such counter affidavit was filed to oppose the present petition. In the circumstances, this Court did not consider it apposite to defer the hearing and the petition has been heard in the absence of any representation on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 11.03.2015 (hereafter “the impugned order”) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter “the CIC”). The petitioner claims that a plot bearing Municipal no.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner’s grandmother, Smt. Raj Kumari Seth. There is some dispute as to the said allotment because the said plot was also allotted to another person. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner required certain information regarding the said allotment and, therefore, filed an application dated 27.05.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act') with respondent no.3. By way of the said application, the petitioner requested for the following information:-
“a. Kindly provide all the related documents/details on record of L&DO pertaining to allotment made, lease executed, applications made, annexures submitted, enclosures submitted, copies of office notings, decisions taken, orders passed, receipts issued, payment received/made etc. with regard to Plot bearing Municipal No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.
b. Kindly provide complete file containing all the related documents/details on record of L&DO including the record of settlement Commissioner, L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi pertaining to any proceedings taken up with regard to Plot bearing Municipal No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.
c. Kindly intimate as to what is the current status of Plot bearing Municipal No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.
d. Kindly intimate who is presently in possession of Plot bearing Municipal No.5, Feroz Gandhi Marg, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.”
3. The petitioner also sought inspection of the relevant records. The respondent no.3 (hereafter 'the CPIO') responded to the petitioner’s request by a letter dated 18.06.2014 denying the petitioner’s request for inspection of the files and information sought by her. The only reason provided by the CPIO for denial of information was that it was not conclusively established as to who was the rightful owner of the property in question.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA rejected the said appeal by an order dated 18.09.2014 by observing that “there is no reason to interfere with the reply given by CPIO”.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before the CIC. The said appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:-
“2. The Commission heard the submissions made by Shri Lalit Gupta, Learned Advocate, on behalf of appellant, at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in her RTI application dated 27.05.2014, respondent's response dated 18.06.2014, FAA's order dated 18.09.2014, respondent's response dated 10.03.2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
3. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the require
