Central Information Commission
Ms. Uma Sanyal vs Directorate Of Defence Estates, ... on 8 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00525 & Complaint no.CIC/WB/C/2008/00268 dated 31-3-2008 &
19/2/'08
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Ms. Uma Sanyal
Respondent: Directorate of Defence Estates, Lucknow
FACTS
These are a complaint and an appeal moved separately on the same subject, the complaint having been moved before a decision on 1st appeal. They have therefore been heard as one. By an application of 6-11-07 Ms. Uma Sanyal of Andheri, Mumbai applied to Ms. Rachel Koshy, CPIO, Directorate of Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow seeking the following information:
"Details of disposal, including marginal remarks if any on my letter dated 17.9.07 addressed to Prin /Dir D.E, Lucknow Cantt. Regarding alteration of land records and illegal resumption of land at 18 Kennedy Road, Varanasi Cantt."
In the letter referred to, Ms. Uma Sanyal had enclosed in tabular form details of alleged violations of laid down instructions and active steps allegedly taken by the DEO, Allahabad to mislead and suppress vital information together with that chart on 8 items concerning correspondence with the Ministry of Defence and the corresponding Cantonment Laws that had been allegedly violated together with remarks. In this attachment she has concluded as follows:
"Proves land was never governed by Old Grant, since it ended well before the property was included in Benaras Cantt. Hence earlier statements of DEO, Allahabad are fraudulent and misleading, with intention to cheat. Earlier letters of DEO, Allahabad prove just the reverse. Proved perpetration of fraud, and subsequent active efforts to mislead and suppress evidence in violation of laid down Def Dep't. Instructions and Cantt. Laws. Proves criminal conspiracy for which no sovereign immunity available as per recent Supreme Court Opinion."
What appellant Ms. Uma Sanyal has asked for is, therefore, the manner of disposal of the allegations made in these 8 references. In 1 response to the application the CPIO, Directorate of Defence Estates, Lucknow supplied the following information:
"A report on your aforesaid letter was called for from the Defence Estate Officer, Allahabad, who has reported that the matter is subjudice, since you have filed a Writ Petition No. 9093/1988 which is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad. As regards non receipt of rentals, the DEO has reported that an amount of Rs. 9000/- towards rentals was sent to you which you have refused to accept."
Aggrieved by this decision Ms. Uma Sanyal moved first appeal to Shri P.S. Fatehullah, Principal Director, Defence Estate, Lucknow, upon which she received a detailed response dated 22-2-06 again signed by CPIO Ms. Rachel Koshy for Principal Director, Defence Estate and concluding as follows:
"It is pertinent to mention that you are stating that the CPIO has furnished/ wrong/ misleading information in the matter that the case is subjudice. However, it was based on information available on record, whereas you were aware of the dismissal of the case on 3.8.07 and in spite of the same you had stated vide your letter dated 24.9.2007 that the case was subjudice and was demanding rentals from the DEO (refer your letter dated 17.9.2007). Since you have questioned the authenticity of the records maintained by the DEO and demanded amendment to the same and also questioned the resumption notice issued by the GOI on the basis of which the property was resumed by the GOI/ MoD. The same cannot now be decided by this Dte and you may approach the Competent Authority for further necessary action please."
Appellant has, therefore, made the following prayer in her second appeal before us:
"CPIO be directed to give detailed disposal/ comments on the irregularities pointed out in my letter dated 17.9.07 with enclosure."
The appeal was heard through video-conference on 7-8-2008. The following are present.
Appellants at NIC Studio, Mumbai Ms. Uma Sanyal.
Shri Suvarna Sanyal, husband of appellant.
Respondents at NIC Studio, Lucknow Shri Ravi Raj, Dir, Defence Estate, Central Command. Shri N. V. Satyanarayan, CPIO & Dir, Central Command. Shri S. N. Mishra, CPIO, Defence Estate, Allahabad.
2Shri Ravi Raj, Director, Defence Estate submitted that it is Old Grant property with which the issue is concerned. Old Grant property The Ministry of Defence can resume Old Grant property. He also submitted that the matter concerns a property in Varanasi which is administered by the Defence Estates Department in Allahabad.
However, the appellant responded that as a result of the information obtained under RTI Act he has found that the property in question is in fact private property.
DECISION NOTICE The information sought by the appellant Ms. Uma Sanyal is simple. She has asked for the manner in which her application to Shri S.C. Nagpal, Principal Director, Defence Estates, Lucknow Cantt dated 17-9-07, which raised serious issues of active perpetuation of fraud in Varanasi Cantt. was disposed of including marginal noting, if any. On this no decision was called for with regard to allegations of illegal assumption etc. If the original complaint had been forwarded to another authority, the application was required to be so informed in response to her RTI application We are constrained to, therefore, observe that the replies both in the initial response and in the first appeal have evaded the issue in question.
Shri Ravi Raj, Director, Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow submitted that they were under the impression that the matter was subjudice and disclosure of any further information may impede the legal process. Section 8 (1) (h), however, is not an exemption clause applying generally to all cases since it distinctly requires an offender. In the present case while not providing the information the CPIO has not pleaded any grounds as to how the matter so impeded the process of investigation or apprehensions of an offender, nor has she even identified who is the offender. Such a summary disposal of RTI application reflects a failure of application of mind, and is unacceptable.
3The appeal is, therefore, allowed. CPIO Shri S.N. Mishra, Defence Estates, Allahabad who is the competent CPIO in the present case will, therefore, apply his mind to the specific questions raised by appellant Ms. Uma Sanyal and provide to her the details of the manner of disposal of her representation of 17-9-07 addressed to the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Lucknow within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
We find, however, that the disposal of the RTI application, however inadequate, has adhered to the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1). There will, therefore, be no penalty.
Reserved in the hearing this decision is announced subsequently on 8th day of August, 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 8-8-2008 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 8-8-2008 4