Central Information Commission
Mr.Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 November, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002325
Appellant : Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy
Respondent : Director General, Defence Estates, New Delhi
Date of hearing : 26.11.2012
Date of decision : 26.11.2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 26.11.2012. Appellant not present. DGDE is represented by Shri Prachur Goel, Dy. DG.
2. In the RTI application dated 28.5.2012, the appellant had referred to complaints dated 22.5.2012 (08 pages) and 23.5.2012 (02 pages) purported to have been faxed to the CPIO of the Directorate General of Defence Estates and had sought to know the action taken thereon.
3. During the hearing, Shri Goel submits that the letter of 22.5.2012 does not appear to have been received by DGDE. However, the letter dated 23.5.2012 was received and he produces the said letter before the Commission wherein the appellant has alleged that defence land (area not given) located at Golibar Bandra E Mumbai has been leased out to Shivalik Ventures in connivance with MHADA and SRA officials alongwith some officials of Mantralaya etc. and has requested the office of DGDE to initiate criminal proceedings against the land grabbers and also to take action against the officials who failed to protect the defence land etc.
4. It is noticed that CPIO (Lands -II) in the office of DGDE had responded to it vide letter dated 9.7.2012 stating therein that he could provide only that information which was being maintained by the public authority and that he could not ask the CPIO asto what action had been taken in regard to the alleged grabbing of defence land.
5. The real question is whether defence land has been grabbed by Shivalik Ventures in connivance with the officials of MHADA and SRA, as alleged by the appellant, and if yes, what remedial action, if any, has been taken by the office of DGDE or his subordinate formations. This basic issue appears to have been lost sight of by the CPIO while responding to the RTI application in his letter of 9.7.2012.
6. However, during the hearing, Shri Goel submits that a litigation is pending in City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, but he has not been able to clarify asto why the requisite information could not be supplied to the appellant. In my opinion, the RTI application has not been properly responded to by the CPIO. It is for the office of DGDE and his subordinate offices to determine asto whether any land has been grabbed by a private entity, as alleged, and, if yes, to take remedial action as per law. Simply to tell the appellant that he is not seeking any information is not a correct approach. Further, it is true that this very matter is pending in a particular court, then the name of the court, case number and the progress, if any, made in the litigation is also required to be provided to the appellant. In view of this, I hereby remand the case to the CPIO with the direction to respond to the RTI application in light of the above observations of this Commission in 04 weeks time. He is expected to exercise due diligence in this important matter.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO DTE, Gen. Defence Estates, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulan Baatar Road, Delhi Cantt., Delhi - 110010
2. Shri Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy 2/13, Adinath CHS, Opp. Elly Kadoorie School, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400010