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.
