Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Home on 6 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2023/649583
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for
India, Mumbai
Department of Home
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.08.2023
PIO replied on : 06.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 06.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 04.10.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, which amends the Enemy Property Act (it prevents the successors of those who migrated to Pakistan and China during Partition from claiming properties left behind in India) and this has likely ensured the end of Saif Ali Khan (son of the famous cricketer Nawab of Pataudi Mansur Ali Khan) and the rest of his familys claim over the ancestral property of Nawab Hamidullah Khan.
1. Supply complete details and present status about property of Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal, and others, including Nawab of Pataudi Mansur Ali Khan.
2. Supply complete details and present status about property of Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal, and others, including Nawab of Pataudi Mansur Ali Khan, covered under:
A). Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017. B). Enemy Property Rules, 2015.
C). Enemy Property Act, 1968.
Page 1 D). Enemy Property (Amendment) Rules, 2018. E). Procedure and mechanism for Sale of Enemy Share Order, 2019. F). Guidelines for disposal of Enemy Property (Amendment) Order, 2019.
G). Procedure and Mechanism for Disposal of immovable Enemy Properties Order, 2020.
H). Status of Arms confiscated and seized by Jhajjar Police, in FIR No. 191 on dated 5-6-2005 with Police Station Jhajjar.
1). Status of FIR No. 192, on dated 6-6-2005, with Police Station Jhajjar, being whistleblower."
The CPIO, Department of Home vide letter dated 06.09.2023 replied as under:-
Q. A to G:- "Information is available on this office website. Q. H & I You are requested to provide address of the property against which FIR No. 191 & 192 were lodged."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2023 stated as under:-
3. "I have gone through the replies and records placed before me.
The reply has been issued by the CPIO, Mumbai vide letter no. CEPI/Mum/RTI/781 dated 06.09.2023. However, I find that there were point-wise queries (1 and 2-A to H) but there is no reply given to point 1 & 2 specifically.
4. Therefore, I order that CPIO should re-examine the RTI application and supply requisite information if covered under the RTI Act. In case any information is not being given, specific reasons and provisions of the RTI Act should be quoted."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Not present Written submission dated 23.12.2024 has been received from Ms. Manali Joshi, APIO/ Superintendent, Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Mumbai and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 2
3. In the present Appeal, the Appellant had sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 vide his Application dated 07/08/2023 seeking information on the claim of properties of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan that devolved upon Nawab of Mansur Ali Khan.
4. As Regards point No. 1 i.e. present Status of properties of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan, which devolved upon Nawab of Mansur Ali Khan is as follows:
(a) Litigations were pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being
(i) Writ Petition No. 4980 of 2015: Saif Ali Khan Pataudi V/s.
Union of India & Ors.
(ii) Writ Petition No. 6070 of 2015: Smt. Sharmila Tagore (Pataudi) V/s. Union of India & Ors.
(iii) Writ Petition No. 10337 of 2015: Sabiha Sultan V/s. Union of India & Ors. have been disposed off by Orders dated 13/12/2024 passed. by the Hon'ble High Court and the Petitioners have been relegated to the Central Government u/s 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 with directions to the Petitioners to file their Representation within 30 days from the date of the Order.
(b) It has also been reported that there are many pending litigations in the Hon'ble High Court as well as the District Courts between the various LRs of Late Nawab. Hamidullah Khan.
(c) The process of Detection & Identification of properties of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan, which would come within. the ambit of the term 'Enemy Property under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 is going on.
5.As Regards point No. 2, i.e. present Status of properties of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan is same as mentioned in para 5 herein above. It would be pertinent to note that points 2A to 2G are all part and parcel of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. For e.g. point 2A i.e. the provisions of the Amending Act, 2017 have been injected in provisions of point No. 2C. The Rules 2015 mentioned at point 2B are framed under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and amended at Point 2D. Further, it may be noted. that none of the properties of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan, have reached the Disposal Stage under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 ie. point 2F & 2G.
Page 3
6. As regards Point 2H & 21 regarding FIR filed, details of Property were sought from the Applicant vide Reply dated 06/09/2023 under the RTI Act, which have not been received till date. In fact, such details would also be of assistance in the on- going process of detection and identification of the enemy interest in the Estate of Late Nawab Hamidullah Khan.As an alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, all these Writ Petition Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
Page 4 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)