INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

W.P.(C)1432/2014andCMNo.2972/2014

EDWARDKEVENTER(SUCCESSORS)

PRIVATELIMITED.....Petitioner

Through:MrRajivNayar,Sr.Adv.withMsMeghnaMishra,MsFarehaA.
KhanandMsNiytiKohli,Advocates.

versus

THECENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

andORS.....Respondents

Through:MrJasmeetSingh,CGSCforR1and2.

MsShlokaRawat,Adv.proxyforMrPrashantBhushan,Adv.forR3.

CORAM:

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEVIBHUBAKHRU


ORDER

17.11.2014

1.Thepetitionerimpugnsanorderdated06.01.2014passedbyCentral
InformationCommission(hereafter?CIC?)undersection19oftheRightto
InformationAct,2005(hereafter?RTIAct?),allowingtheappeal
preferredbyrespondentno.3againstanorderoftheFirstAppellate
Authorityanddirectingthatinformationpertainingtolandsituatedat
Block48,DiplomaticEnclave,SardarPatelMarg,NewDelhiandchangeof
landusebytheconcernedauthoritiesbesuppliedtorespondentno.3.
TheCICconcludedthatthedisclosureofsuchinformationwasinpublic
interest,asisclearfromtheextractofthesaiddecisionquoted
below:

?8.Whatemergesfromthehearingisthatthisisamatterofpublic

interesttakingintoaccounttheissuesofenvironmentalstandards,carrying
capacitiesandimpactassessmentthatsuchlandusechangewould
entail,alongwithurbanplanningandzoningissues.Hence,the
appellantshouldgettheinformation,whichwouldbeinthepublic
interest.?

2.Thepetitionerhascontendedthattheimpugnedorderisvitiatedas

adequateopportunitywasnotprovidedtothepetitionerasrequiredunder
theRTIAct.Thelearnedcounselhasfurtherreliedonthedecisionof
thisCourtinCentreforDevelopmentofAdvancnedComputingv.Brig.
(Retd.)UjjalDasguptaandAnr.:169(2010)DLT316andreferredtopara11
ofthesaiddecisionwhichreadsasunder:

?11.ItisplaintothisCourtfromareadingofSection11and19(4)
oftheRTIActthatoncetheCICacknowledgesthattheinformationsought
pertainstoathirdparty,inthiscase,RandAW,thenwithoutnoticeto
suchthirdpartyandhearingitsviewsinthematter,theCICcannot
proceedfurtherinthematter.Whetherinfactthepublicinterestinthe
disclosureoftheinformationoutweighedinimportanceanypossibleharm
orinjurytotheinterestofsuchthirdpartyintermsoftheprovision
ofSection11(1)oftheRTIAct,hadtobedecidedbytheCIConlyafter
hearingsuchthirdparty.InasmuchasthesoftwareoftheProject
AnveshakhasbeendevelopedexclusivelyfortheRandWA,thequestionof
disclosureofanysuchinformationhadtobedecidedonlyafterhearing
theRandAW.?

3.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthersubmitsthatinthis
viewanoralhearingwasnecessaryincompliancewithSection19(4)of
theRTIAct.Hesubmitsthatsinceanopportunityfororalhearingwas
notgranted,theorderpassedbyCICisvitiated.

4.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthersubmitsthat

applicationfiledbyrespondentno.3forseekinginformationwasnever
puttothepetitionerand,therefore,theorderofCICisvitiated.

5.ThelearnedcounselappearingforCICsubmitsthatSection19(4)of
theRTIActwasfullycompliedwithasbyacommunicationdated
28.02.2013thepetitionerwasgrantedanopportunitytomakeoralor
writtensubmissions.

6.Section19(4)oftheRTIActreadsasunder:

?(4)IfthedecisionoftheCentralPublicInformationOfficerorState
PublicInformationOfficer,asthecasemaybe,againstwhichanappeal
ispreferredrelatestoinformationofathirdparty,theCentral
InformationCommissionorStateInformationCommission,asthecasemay
be,shallgiveareasonableopportunityofbeingheardtothatthird
party.?

7.Undisputedly,theCIChadcausedanoticedated28.02.2103tobe
servedonthepetitioner,informingthepetitionerthatrespondentno.3
hadsoughtforinformationwithregardtothepropertysituatedatBlock
No.48,DiplomaticEnclave,SardarPatelMarg,NewDelhiaswellasthe

?notingportion?.Thepetitionerwasfurthercalledupontomakeitssubmissions
eitherorallyorinwriting,astowhyinformationshouldnot
bedisclosedtorespondentno.3withinaperiodof10daysfromthedate

ofthesaidletter.Thepetitioneravailedofthisopportunityandmade
itssubmissionbyaletterdated10.03.2013pointingoutthatrespondent
no.3hadnostakeandwasnotassociatedeitherdirectlyorindirectly
withthepropertyinquestionand,therefore,noinformationrelatingto
thesaidpropertyoughttobefurnishedtorespondentno.3.

8.Inviewoftheaforesaid,thecontentionthatthepetitionerhadnot
beengrantedanopportunityofhearingcannotbesustained.An
opportunityofmakingoralsubmissionswasgrantedtothepetitionerin
viewoftheunequivocallanguageofthenoticeissuedon28.02.2013,
howeverthepetitionerrestedcontentbysendingaresponsedated
10.03.2013.Thus,theprovisionofSection19(4)oftheRTIActwasduly
compliedwith.

9.Iamalsounabletoacceptthecontentionthatthepetitionerwas
prejudicedinanymanneronaccountofnondisclosureoftheapplication
preferredbyrespondentno.3.Thepetitionerwasinformedofthat
respondentno.3hadsoughtinformationrelatingtothepropertyBlock
48,DiplomaticEnclave,SardarPatelMarg,NewDelhiaswellasthe
?notingportion?.Thus,thepetitionerwasawareoftheinformationthat
wassought.Itisclarifiedthatnoinformationrelatingtothepetitoner
otherthanthatrelatingtothepropoertyinquestionistobedisclosed.

10.Sincethelimitedcontentionraisedbythepetitioneriswithregard
toanopportunitytobeheard.Irefrainfromconsideringthemeritsof
decisionoftheCICinallowingtheappeal.

11.Inviewoftheaforesaid,thewritpetitionandtheapplicationare
dismissed.Thepartiesarelefttobeartheirowncosts

VIBHUBAKHRU,J

NOVEMBER17,2014/RK

$11

"

Raian N, Karanjawala
Managing Partner
KARAN]AWALA

Manik Karanjawala

& COMPANY

Founding Partner

Nandini Gore

Ruby Singh Ahuja

Sandeep Kapur

Meghna Mishra

Partners
To,

Central Puhlie Information Orncer

Minislry of Urban Development,

US (Delhi Division), Nirman Bhawull,

New Delhi

Re:

Wril Petition (C) No, IIj:i2 of 2014 tilled "Ed,,\'ard Kcventer ISuccessors I
Pr: v:11~.~ Lit ni II~d v. Cell Iral I,-, r,)rm;]! ion C'.I)!1~ tl,i"',i(l!':"

Our Client:

Edward I<evelller ISuccessorsl Pl'ivale Limited

Dear Sir

1.

the

Our clienlhas filed the captioned Writ Petition seeking, inter alia, selling aside
order dated 06.01.2014 passed

by

lhe

Re~;pondent

No.

in

Appeal

No.

elC/VB/A/201:i/000256.
"i

2.

The captioned Writ Pelition was listed on 03.03.2014 in lht! High Court or Delhi

before [Ion'blc Mr.Justice Manmohall in COllfl no. 9 at item no. 4:i. You were
represented by your eounsel.in the hearing held on o3.0:i.2014.

:i.

Tluving heard the counsel for the Petitioner, the Ilon'ble Court has been pleased

to issue notice in lite pctiLion. The llon'ble Court has further been pleased to stay the

impugned order dated

.1.

06.01.2014

passed by the Central (nrormation Commission .

In view of the order dated O:l.I.~:~.20 14 passl'd by the TTon'blu Cou.rt. you arc hereby

requested that no infonnatiCiI1 as sOllght for in the RTI Application by t.lw Applieant, Mr.

I array,~d as Respondent No. :i L be provided

No. "H, Diplomatic Enelave, Sardar Palel Marg,

Subhash Chandra Agarw:1l

in relation to.

property bearing Block

New Delhi

Edward Keventer I Suceessors I I'rival e Limited.

12TH FLOOR. HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE.

18-20. KASTURBA GANDHl MARG. NEW DELHI. 11000]

or

'Raian N. Karanjawala
Managing Partner

KARANJAWALA

Manik Karanjawala

& COMPANY

Founding Partner

Nandini Gore
Ruby Singh Ahuja
Sandeep Kapur
Meghna Mishra
Partners

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of the Order dated O:~.O:~.2014 as passed by

lhe 1Ton'ble IIigh Courl in the caplioned matter.

Take notice accordingly.

L:L ~ pjC--t_' fJ,.

~:~:~I

.l"'~
r

KARANJAWALA & CO.

CC:
I. /

\,.../'

Shri Vijay Sharma,

Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
Room NO.4, Club Building,
Old .JNU Campus,
New Delhi -lIoo67

2.

Shri Dharmendra, [AS,

.Joint Secretary, Minislry of Urban Developmenl,

(;ovL of India,

Nirman Bhawan,

Maulana Azad Road, New-Delhi

3.

Land & Developmenl Officer,

Ministry of Urban Development,

GovL. of India,

Nirman Bhawan,

Maulana Azad Road, New-Delhi

Encl: As above.

12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE, .

18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG. NEW DELHI. 110001
PHONE, 43588888 (43588801-99) FAX. 43588800.41551910

#43

, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW HELIn

W.P.(C) 1432/2014
EDWARD KEVENTER (SUCCESSORS,)
'PRlVATE LIMITED'
..... Petitioner
Through
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate
.
with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, " '
Ms. Meghna Mishfa, Ms. Fareha A.
Khan and Ms. Niyati Kohli,
Advocates
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION

..... Respondents

COMMISSION & ORS

Through Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate for
for
Ms. Sumeet Pushkarna,
R-2/UOI.

casc

; CORAM:

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOIIAN

ORDER
03.03.2014 '

OM ABPL. 2973/2014 in W.P.(C) 143212014

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

I, '

W.P.(C) 1432/2014 & eM APPL. 2972/2014

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6 th
January, 2014 passed by Centrar Information Commission whereby
respondent no. 2 has been directed to provide, information under the Right to
Information Act.
w.P.(C) UJ212014

Page J 0[2

I
I~
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the
impugned order has been passed by respondent no. 1 in violation of
mandatory third party procedure prescribed under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') as well as in violation of principles of
natural justice. He has drawn this Court's attention to Sections 11 (1) and

19(4) of the RTI Act.

Issue notice.

Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent

no. 2.

j'

In view of the Division Bench judgment, no notice is required to he

issued to respolldent no. 1.
Issue notice to respondent no. 3 by all modes including dasH,

returnabl~ for lih August, 2014.

Till further orders, the impugned order dated 6

th

January, 2014 is

stayed.,
Order dasti.

,
M";"RCH 03, 2014
rn :

W.I'.(C) 1432/2014

;;

Pagd of2

CIC

should

ensure

compliance

of its

verdict

dated

03.12.2013

in

appeal-number

CICNSIAl2013/000256/05604 against Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD): May expose

Delhi's biggest land-scam (see attachments)

It refers to ClC-verdict dated 03.12.2013 in appeal-number CICNSIAl2013/000256/05604 where Central
Information Commissioner Vijai Sharma directed Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) to
provide complete and detailed information on land-use change allowed from Dairy Farm to Residential
Group Housing for property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi
110021 where media-reports indicate that serious security concerns were raised by Rashtrapati Bhawan,
Intelligence bureau, Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and others concerned because of big 22-acre plot of
land in close vicinity to Rashtrapati Bhawan.

MoUD is amongst the most notorious public-authorities in complying with CIC-verdicts and properly
responding to RTI petitions. RTI petitions with uncomfortable queries are unnecessarily and useless
transferred to hundreds of offices of Central Public Works Department (CPWD) misusing section 6(3) of
RTI Act where RTI responses pour from these CPWD offices providing information relating to them as
'NIL'. It is also a wastage of public-resources through man-hours and postal-charges apart from
confusing RTI petitioner through hundreds of useless responses without coming with a relevant reply.

Responsibility should be fixed on Union Minister of Urban Development by sacking him from the post.
Central Information Commission should take sue-motto cognizance of non-compliance of its important
verdict which if complied is likely to expose Delhi's biggest land-scam. Even if land-use change is now
cancelled, CBI-enquiry should be ordered in whole episode with guilty ones sent to jail.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTf Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk
DELHI 110006 (India)
Mobile 9810033711

Fax

23254036

E-mail subhashmadhu@sifY.com
Web

www.subhashmadhu.com

04.03.2014
PRSEC1E/2014/04277
DOlJRD/E/2014/00277

CentralInformationCommission
RoomNo.4,ClubBuilding,
OldJNUCampus,NewDelhi110067.
TelNo:01126106140

DecisionNo.CIC/VS/A/2013/000256/05604
AppealNo.CIC/VS/A/2013/000256
Dated:06.1.2014

Appellant:

ShriSubhashChandraAgrawal
1775,KuchaLattushah,Dariba
ChandniChowk,NewDelhi110006

Respondent:
CentralPublicInformationOfficer
MinistryofUrbanDevelopment
US(DelhiDivision),NirmanBhawan
NewDelhi110108

DateofHearing:
03.12.2013
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 16.12.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking

informationregardingwhetherchangeoflandusewassoughtfromdairyfarmto
residential group housing, copy of the application, if any, action taken on the
application,filenotingsforchangeoflanduse,objectionbyanyministry,etc.CPIO
vide order dated 28.12.2012 denied the information sought by the appellant.
Appellantfiledfirstappealbeforethefirstappellateauthority(FAA)on03.01.2013.
FAAvideorderdated14.01.2012transferredtheappealtotheconcerneddepartment.
Appellantfiledthispresentsecondappealon18.02.2013.
Hearing
2. AppellantandrespondentwerepresentbeforetheCommission.
3. AppellantreferredtohisRTIapplicationandreiteratedthevariouspointsstatingthat

hewasseekinginformationregardingwhetherchangeoflandwassoughtfromdairy

farmtoresidentialgrouphousing,copyoftheapplication,ifany,actiontakenonthe
application,filenotingsforchangeoflanduse,objectionbyanyministry,etc.
4. Appellantstatedthathehadreceivedinformationthataparticularlandandhousing

developer was moving for changing the land use from dairy farm to residential
housingsocietyasperRTIapplicationwhichinvolvedlargestakes.Appellantstated
thatactionhadbeeninitiatedtochangethelanduseandthataleadingrealestate
developerwasinvolved. Appellantstatedthatthechangeinlandusemaynotbe
conducivetotheenvironmentalcarryingcapacities,henceitwasinpublicinterest
thathesoughttheinformationintheRTIapplication.
5. Appellantstatedthatpointsno.10,12,13and14wereofgeneralnaturebutthe

remainingpointswerespecificandneededtobeaddressedseparately.
6. Respondentstatedthattheinformationsoughtbytheappellantpertainedtovarious

agencies. Respondent stated that they had written to the departments like DDA,
L&DO,NDMCetc.,buttherewasnoresponse.
7. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was third party

information.Itwasstatedthatafterreceivingthenotice,actionhadbeeninitiated
undersection11oftheActvideletterdated28.02.2013,howeverthethirdparty,i.e.,
lesseeofthepropertyinquestion,hadinformedtherespondentnottodiscloseany
informationtotheappellantandthatthesamehadalreadybeeninformedtothe
appellantvideletterdated08.05.2013.
8. Whatemergesfromthehearingisthatthisisamatterofpublicinteresttakinginto

account the issues of environmental standards, carrying capacities and impact

assessmentthatsuchlandusechangewouldentail,alongwithurbanplanningand
zoningissues.Hence,theappellantshouldgettheinformation,whichwouldbeinthe
publicinterest.
Decision
9. Respondentisdirectedtoprovidetheinformationonpoints1to9andpoint11ofthe
RTIapplication.Asrequired,informationshouldbeprocuredfromtheconcerned
agencies(seepara6above)andprovidedwithin30daysofthisorder.
Theappealisdisposedof.Copyofdecisionbegivenfreeofcosttotheparties.

(VijaiSharma)
InformationCommissioner

Authenticatedtruecopy:

(V.K.Sharma)
DO&DeputyRegistrar

SENIOR CITIZEN : PRIORITY HEARING REQUESTED

BEFORE HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
PETITION UNDER SECTION 19(3) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Petitioner
Subhash Chandra Agrawal
1775 Kucha Lattushah
Dariba, Chandni Chowk
Delhi-110006

Respondents
Central Public Information Officer
Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
(Delhi Division)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

Shri JP Agrawal
Joint Secretary & Appellate Authority
Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
(Delhi Division)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

Shri Rakesh Goel, DCA(STC) & CPIO

New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC)
Department of Architecture & Environs
Palika Kendra, New Delhi-110001

&
Senior Research Officer & CPIO
Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
RTI Implementation & Co-ordination Branch)
C-Block, 3rd floor, Vikas sadan
INA, New Delhi-110023

Brief Facts & Prayer

I vide my RTI petition dated 16.10.2012 addressed at MoUD sought complete information
together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings on under-mentioned aspects:
1. Is it true that change of land-use has been sought from Dairy Farm to Residential Group
Housing for property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg,
New Delhi-110021
2. If yes, copy of application seeking the said change in land-use as in query (1) above
mentioning also complete details of the person/firm/company etc owning the said land
including partners/directors of the land-owning firm/company etc
3. Complete information on action taken on any such application for change in land-use in
respect of property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New
Delhi-110021

together

with

related

correspondence/documents/file-notings

etc

mentioning also present status of the said land and also of the application filed for landuse
4. Complete information on amount of money deposited as application-money towards
change of land-use as in queries above
5. Complete information on referring matter of change in land-use of the said property as in
queries above to other concerned ministries/agencies/departments/persons etc together
with all related correspondence/file-notings/documents etc
6. Complete information on objections against change in land-use either by MoUD and/or
by any other ministries/agencies/departments/persons etc together by copies of any such
objections
7. Is it true that security-agencies and/or others concerned have registered objections against
any such sought permission for construction to be done at Block No.48, Diplomatic
Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021 specially because of proximity of the
plot with Rashtrapati Bhawan?
8. If yes, please provide details together with related file-notings/documents/correspondence
etc on abjections raised in regard with security-aspects
9. Is the property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New
Delhi-110021 in the Lutyen Bungalow Zone (LBZ)?

10. Complete information on areas and postal-zones covered by LBZ and about restrictions
applicable for new constructions in LBZ mentioning also maximum height permissible
for constructing any building, residential or commercial, in the LBZ?
11. Height of the building/apartment-complex etc mentioned in the submitted plan for the
property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi110021 while seeking change in land-use
12. Complete information about buildings in LBZ constructed in violation of norms
including about height of such buildings mentioning separately norm violated by each of
such building and year of construction of such buildings
13. Complete information on action taken on buildings having constructed in LBZ violating
norms set for constructions in LBZ area mentioning also responsibility fixed and action
taken against concerned ones for violation in construction-rules for LBZ area
14. Has any responsibility been fixed as far as illegal constructions are concerned? Their
details?
15. Any other related information
16. File-notings on movement of RTI petition
Learned CPIO at MoUD (Delhi Division) vide response K-20013/3/2012-DD-V(1047/PIC)
dated 28.12.2013 summarily declined information on all the queries of the RTI petition even
though many of the queries did not refer to property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic
Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021.
Even in respect of queries relating to property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave,
Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021, larger public-interest is involved because of high stake of
money due to commercial aspects is involved. Even CPIO failed to invoke section 11 of RTI Act
relating to Third Party Information on these queries within stipulated five days of receipt of
RTI petition. Therefore CPIO had no right left to deny otherwise also information relating to
property situated at Block No.48, Diplomatic Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021.
RTI petition was also transferred to DDA which further transferred it to NDMC.
I filed my first appeal dated 03.01.2013 where Appellate Authority while accepting my plea,
directed to transfer RTI petition to NDMC. But CPIO at NDMC vide letters dated 08.02.2013
reverted back RTI petition to MoUD. I appeal that responsibility may kindly be fixed on
concerned public-authorities to point-wise respond to my various queries but with direction to

provide sought and related documents free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI act. It is prayed
accordingly.
Humbly submitted

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

18.02.2013

Verification
I, Subhash Chandra Agrawal s/o late Shri Om Prakash and resident of 1775, Kucha Lattushah,
Dariba, Delhi-110006 verify that the facts mentioned above are correct to best of my
knowledge.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

1775 Kucha Lattushah
Dariba DELHI 110006 (India)
Mobile 9810033711

Fax

23254036

E-mail subhashmadhu@sify.com
18.02.2013
Copies enclosed:
RTI petition dated 16.12.2012
MoUD letter dated 21.12.2012
MoUD dated 28.12.2012
First Appeal dated 03.01.2013
Appeal-order dated 16.01.2013
MoUD letter dated 14.01.2013
NDMC letter dated 08.02.2013
MoUD letter dated 15.01.2013
NDMC letter dated 08.02.2013
DDA letter dated 17.01.2013