Central Information Commission
Shri Amba Lal Nayak vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha) on 26 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00429 dated 15.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Amba Lal Nayak
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Decision announced: 26.10.2009
Facts:
By an application of 27.8.07 Shri Amba Lal Nayak of Kalka Mata Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan applied to the Union Home Secretary, Govt. of India, seeking the following information:
"Details of private property of erstwhile Maharana of Mewar and of public property, as was prepared on 20th April, 1949 at Mount Abu by representative of Maharana of Mewar, Representative of Govt. of India and Govt. of Rajasthan prepared at the time of amalgamation of Mewar State, Photo copy of Details of final inventory prepared in respect of Property of Maharana by Ministry of States and intimated to him vide D.O. No. D-5079-P/49 dated 20 June, 1949."
To this Shri Amba Lal Nayak received a response of 11.9.07 from Shri N. M. Perumal, Director (Judicial), MHA refusing the information u/s 8(1) (j), as follows:
"the information relating to properties of ex-rulers are part of unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State. Therefore, the information cannot be provided as Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act empowers to withhold information pertaining to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest."
Shri Nayak then moved an appeal on 26.11.07 upon which he received the following order from Jt. Secretary Shri Shashi Bhushan, Appellate Authority, MHA:
"I have gone through the records. I find that the information sought by you has not been given even to the Parliament. Its disclosure would, therefore, entail a breach of privilege of the Parliament and hence would attract provisions of Sec. 8(i) (c) of the RTI Act, 2005.1
Therefore, I do not find any reason to set aside the decision of the CPIO conveyed to you, vide this letter dated 11.09.2007."
In this order, however, refusal was under sub sec. (c) of Sec. 8(1). Appellant's prayer before us in second appeal is as follows:
"For providing final list of inventory of Mewar Estate of the year 1949 (20th April)"
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 14.9.2009 at 2.00 p.m. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak Shri Ghanendra Singh Saroha Respondents Shri Shashi Bhushan, Jt. Secretary Shri Mohinder Singh, Director Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, S.O. Appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak submitted that his questions pertain to the agreement of 1949 with one of the erstwhile Rulers of Rajasthan. While he had been told of the reasons why this is not to be disclosed, he wished to know of that portion of the land of the princely state that has become public and what continues to be private. He submitted that it could not be denied that disclosure of this interest is in overriding public interest. In this context he referred to an ongoing litigation in the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur - Bharat Hotels vs. Ministry of Disinvestment and ors. on which a decision was pronounced on 15.10.2003. In this context, he presented copies of all the documents that he has obtained including a copy of a letter of 14.7.1949 from Shri Vellodi, Secretary, Ministry of States, New Delhi addressed to Raj Pramukh of the then Rajasthan Union, Jaipur, attaching a letter of the private properties of the Maharana Saheb of Udaipur and an affidavit sworn before the High Court by the Govt. of India through the Ministry of Disinvestment. Similarly he has attached a copy of an unsigned letter of 28.3.51 from Shri V. P. Menon of the Ministry of States, New Delhi addressed to the Maharana of Udaipur, in which the latter has stated as follows:2
"In partial modification of the decisions communicated to Your Highness with Shri Vellodi's letter No. F.4 (3)-P/49 dated the 14th July, 1949, the Government of India agree to recognize the following items of property as Your Highness's private property.
i) Laxmi Vilas Palace
ii) Sahelion-ki-badi gardens and buildings.
Your Highness will have to maintain the gardens and allow the public access to them as in the past."
These, and other documents certified as attested true copies, were submitted to us, with the original attestation being not only by the representatives of the Department of Disinvestment but also by Shri Sushil Kumar Bhatnagar Under Secretary, MHA and by Shri Khalil Ahmad, S.O., MHA who have attested these on 5.9.2003 and 20.6.2003 respectively. These papers have already been presented, duly attested, before the Hon'ble High Court by the Department of Disinvestment. Copies of these documents were submitted to us and a copy of each handed over to Shri Shashi Bhushan, Jt. Secretary, MHA.
Respondent Shri Shashi Bhushan Jt. Secretary submitted that the information displayed by appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak, had not been provided by them since, as in the case of Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi, the then Minister Shri Y. B. Chavan had made a statement refusing access to Parliament thus bringing it within the ambit of sub sec. (c) of Sec. 8(1) of the RTI Act and, therefore, exempt from disclosure. JS Shri Shashi Bhushan submitted that for this reason, the MHA has not yet transferred these documents even to the National Archives. This was conceded by appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak who had in fact approached the National Archives for the information which was refused on the ground that it was not held by that public authority.
However, on the disclosability of the information sought appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak responded by specifically inviting Shri Shashi Bhushan's attention to the attested and certified copies provided by the MHA itself and arguing that because these documents have now all been presented in Court, 3 they can no longer remain exempt from disclosure in light of the overriding public interest described by him above.
Upon this we made the interim decision that in the case of Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi vs. Ministry of Home Affairs, we have in our final decision notice of 9.6.09, held that certain properties asked for in that case by Shri Singhvi were personal property and therefore, information not accessible under the RTI Act. However, in the present case, this decision will not apply. Instead the response of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is relevant. We have received the following remarks from Dy. Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Privilege & Ethics Branch dated 17.7. 08 in which he has submitted as follows:
"It has been observed that as per the communication of Director, Judicial and CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 31st October 2007 addressed to the applicant, Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi, "Saheliyon-Ki-Bari", the property regarding which information has been sought by the applicant, is a State Property. The information south through USQ No. 655 in 1967 pertained to private properties that remained with rulers at the time of accession. The principle (that details of ... private property of the ruler should not be matter of public disclosure) on which information was denied to Parliament, in reply to USQ 655 does not, therefore, appear to be applicable to Saheliyon-Ki-Bari which, as per the admission of the Government is a State Property. It seems to be debatable whether provisions of Section 8(1) (c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 may be invoked under these circumstances. Further the applicant, who desires this information in connection with a case pending in a court has, in this application dated 9th March 2007 to the CIC, categorically stated that if it is not possible for the Government to disclose the information to him, it may be made available directly to the court in which his case is pending.
In the event of the Government acceding to the said request made by the applicant vide his letter dated 9th March, 2007, there would be no "public disclosure".
From the above, it is clear that the disclosure of information sought in the present application will not in the view of then Speaker, Lok Sabha breach the exemption from disclosure granted u/s 8(1)(c). Thus even were we to arrive at the decision that the disclosure of this information will cause a breach of 4 Parliament notwithstanding the overriding public interest, this information would still become discloseable u/s 8 (2).
In the present case, however, it appears that the information already stands disclosed. To determine whether this has been an unauthorized leakage or a considered decision to disclose the information, this appeal was then remanded to Shri Shashi Bhushan, First Appellate Authority who was directed that within twenty days from the date of receipt of this decision notice he would examine the records and if necessary discuss the matter with appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak to arrive at a conclusion as to their discloseability and if not to be disclosed, the reasons why the MHA has so decided. This would enable us to come to a conclusion under the Right to Information Act on the validity of imposing any exemption on this information u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act. The appeal was then scheduled to be heard on 23.10.09 1 at 12.00 noon by videoconference.
Consequently, on 21.10.09 the appeal was heard by videoconference. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Udaipur Shri Amba Lal Nayak, Appellant Shri Jaideep Bhatt Assisting Appellant Respondents Shri Shashi Bhushan, Jt. Secretary Shri A. K. Sharma, Section Officer Appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak submitted that he had indeed received the copies of documents sought but many are without signatures and, therefore, give rise to suspicion of forgery. Jt. Secretary Shri Shashi Bhushan on the other hand submitted that in compliance with the orders of this Commission, Shri Amba Lal Nayak had been invited to inspect the records, which he had done, over a period of five hours, free of charge.1
later on revised to 21.10.09 5 What Shri Nayak is now seeking is an authenticated copy of the documents. In this context Shri Bhushan submitted a copy of an OM dated 14.10.09 from Shri S. K. Nag, Dy. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dep't. of Disinvestment, in which Shri Nag has stated as follows:
"The copies of the documents filed by the Department of Disinvestment were officially requisitioned from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The copies of the documents were provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their communication No. 01/02/2003- Records(O) dated 24th April, 2003, 28th August, 2003 and 5th September, 2003 respectively (copies enclosed at Annexure II). Further, the Ministry of Home Affairs was also informed by the Department of Disinvestment vide its communication No. 6(10)/2002-MODI dated 4th September, 2003 about filling of the documents in question in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur (Annex.III). Thus filing the certified copies of the documents about the details of private properties of the erstwhile Maharaja of Udaipur before the Court of District Judge, Udaipur was with the knowledge of the Ministry of Home Affairs." 2 Appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak submitted that he had filed an application before the concerned Court, which had informed him that they have never asked for these reports and was willing to submit a copy of this order of the Court to the Commission, if required.
DECISION NOTICE The stand taken by the MHA in this case is that these documents pertain to personal information of the Maharaja and, therefore, are not open to public disclosure, although they have indeed been shown to appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak in compliance with the orders of this Commission. However, issue of certified copies of such documents would be in violation of sec. 8(1) (c) and 8(1)
(j). Shri Amba Lal Nayak on the other hand has submitted that the entire exercise of surrender of property of erstwhile Maharaja to the State retaining part for themselves was an exercise in fraud and it is in the public interest to disclose the details so that such persons who had illegally seized property should have been 2 Emphasised by us 6 held to account. He also submitted that since this matter is also now in the public domain, thanks to the information having been released by the Department of Disinvestment, all that is required is that the documents so released be authenticated by the Dep't. holding the same, which is the MHA in this case.
We find then that there is no unwitting leakage of information in this case as implied in the last hearing by respondents leading us to provide an adjournment so that JS Shri Shashi Bhushan, First Appellate Authority might determine whether this has been an unauthorized leakage or a considered decision to disclose the information. From the portion emphasised by us in the quote from letter of 14.10.09 from Shri S. K. Nag, Dy. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dep't. of Disinvestment above , it is a fact that the disclosure through open presentation in court (and not in sealed cover) was "with the knowledge of the Ministry of Home Affairs." Not only has this ;letter not been refuted, it has been presented to us in a hearing as part of respondents' defence. Moreover inspection has also been allowed over a period of five hours, free of charge the latter mandated by Sec 7 (6) of the Act. Under the circumstances there remain no valid grounds for refusing appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak certified copies of the documents as permissible under sub-section (ii) of Sec 2
(j) of the RTI Act. These copies as requested as held by MHA will now be provided to appellant Shri Amba Lal Nayak within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice free of charge. The appeal is the allowed. There will be no costs.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chambers on this 26th day of October, 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.10.2009 7 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26.10.2009 8