Central Information Commission
Anand Doulatram Bhatia vs Office Of The Custodian Of Enemy ... on 24 November, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/OCEPI/A/2019/121179
Shri Anand Doulatram Bhatia अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
O/o the Custodian of Enemy Property for India,
Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 23.11.2021
Date of Decision : 24.11.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.04.2018
PIO replied on : 12.04.2018
First Appeal filed on : 18.05.2018
First Appellate Order dated : 15.03.2019
2nd Appeal received on : 07.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2018 seeking information regarding list of properties identified and/ or deemed as Enemy Property in District Bhopal under Enemy Property Act, 1968 as amended up to date viz. The Enemy property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 on the following points:-Page 1 of 3
The CPIO, vide letter dated 12.04.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2018 stating that a contradictory response is provided in point no 2 of the RTI application. The FAA, vide order dated 15.03.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. Several attempts made by the Commission to contact the Appellant on his mobile number went in vain as his number was out of network coverage.
The Respondent represented by Ms Patricia Failho, CPIO and Assistant Custodian participated in the hearing through audio conference. She stated that the process for detection of enemy properties in Bhopal is ongoing and information pertaining to the same will be disclosed in the public domain as and when the data is updated. On being questioned regarding the contradictory response provided to the Appellant in reference to point no 2 of the RTI application, no satisfactory response was offered by the Ms Failho.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that a clear and precise response with necessary justification for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) and (h) has not been provided to the Appellant. On the other hand, a contradictory reply is given stating that as per Rule 9 (3) of the Enemy Property (Amendment) Rules, 2018, details of enemy properties are hosted online. Thus, the Commission directs Ms Patricia Failho, CPIO and Assistant Custodian to re-examine the matter and provide a Page 2 of 3 revised response with adequate justification/ reason for claiming exemption under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by 31.12.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3