In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001653
Date (s) of Hearing: January 6, 2011
Date of Decision : January 12 , 2011
Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Anil Mahindra
M/s Greeline Promoters Pvt.Ltd
H65, Connaught Circus
New Delhi - 110 001
Represented by: Shri Shashi Prakash.
Respondent(s)
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o the Joint Secretary (RTI)
Akbar Bhawan
Chanakyapuri
New Delhi.
Represented by: Shri Debraj Pradhan, CPIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The appeal is dismissed.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001653
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application was filed by the Applicant on 25.6.2010 with the PIO, Ministry of External Affairs, New
Delhi seeking the following information:
“Kindly confirm to us if the Embassy of the United States of America had applied again through a
Diplomatic Note on 7.1.2010 for granting Approval by the Ministry of External Affairs for concluding
the sale of 10, Tilak Marg in terms of the Award passed on 23.12.2009 by the Arbitral Tribunal of
Justice (Dr.) A.S. Anand (Retd. Chief Justice of India), Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti (Retd. Chief Justice
of India) and Mr. Justice S.N. Sapra (Retd. Judge of the Delhi High Court) within a period of one
month from the date of communication of the Award vide appropriate application through
Diplomatic Channel seeking permission of Government of India (Ministry of External Affairs) for
completing of sale of 10, Tilak Marg, New Delhi in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 27.12.2004 for
the revised price of Rs.80 Crores as decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Applicant sought a certified copy of the Diplomatic Note dated 7th January 2010 by the Embassy of the
United States of America and also sought to know the date on which the Diplomatic Note dated 7th
January 2010 was received by the Ministry of External Affairs, enclosing the Copy of the Award alongwith
the said RTI application.
2. The CPIO replied on 17.8.2010 denying the information under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied
with the reply, the Applicant filed a First Appeal on 01.09.2010 seeking the information once again. The
First Appellate Authority in his order dated 8.9.2010 upheld the decision of the CPIO and once again
denied the information u/s Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved with the constant denial of
information, the Applicant filed the instant Second Appeal on 10.09.2010 before the Commission.
Decision
3. During the hearing, the Applicant was represented by his authorized representative, who submitted that an
Agreement had been signed between the Applicant and the Embassy of USA for sale of the Embassy’s property to
him at a cost of Rs 46 crores. He also stated that in 2009 the Arbitral Tribunal had passed the aforementioned
Award in his favour directing the Embassy to pursue the matter by moving an application within one month to the
Ministry of External Affairs for the sale of the plot. As per the averments of the Applicant, the Embassy wrote to the
MEA on 7.1.2010, but meanwhile the Embassy raised the price of the plot from 46 crores to 80 crores. In this
connection the Applicant is now seeking the response of the MEA to the Embassy’s letter dated 7.1.2010. The
Respondent during the meeting reiterated his contention that the information cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)
(a) of the RTI Act. According to the Respondent, the purchase of land/building is done in reciprocal manner
between India and their Foreign counterparts and hence disclosure of communication relating to such transaction
between the two countries is likely to affect the relation with foreign country.
4. The Commission at this stage directs the CPIO to ensure that PIO Protocol of MEA remains present at the
Commission’s office on 10th January 2011 at 4.30 p.m. along with his written submission on why the information
cannot be disclosed.
5. On the stipulated date and time, the JS, RTI & CPIO, MEA was present and placed his submissions on
record. The submissions of the MEA reveal that deliberations at the highest level has resulted in the information in
the instant matter being denied as privileged correspondence with a foreign state as held earlier by the CPIO. It is
the contention of the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant involves correspondence between
two Governments and is invariably underlined by political implications. It was further orally submitted by the
Respondent in reiteration of his earlier submissions that in view of the policy of the Government in the case of such
commercial transactions with foreign countries involving purchase of immovable properties like real estate etc.,
reciprocity of transactions is maintained. Likewise has happened in the instant case also. It is also a matter of
fact, as per the earlier averments of the Applicant, that the Applicant already has an Arbitral Award in his favor,
which he can execute to his convenience.
6. Therefore, the position emerges that the transaction between the Applicant and the Embassy seems
neither flawed nor does the same seem to have been cancelled owing to any inherent lacunae therein. In most
likelihood, it is due to the Foreign/International policy of the Government of India and the specific terms governing
the sale/purchase of real estate etc. that the sale could not be confirmed in favour of the Applicant. However,
information regarding such confidential terms of the country’s foreign policy, as contended by the Respondent
cannot be divulged being sensitive in nature. Hence, the Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO and
dismisses the instant Appeal.
Pronounced in the chamber of the Commissioner on 13 January, 2011.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Anil Mahindra
M/s Greenline Promotes Pvt.Ltd
H65, Connaught Circus
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o the Joint Secretary
Akbar Bhawan
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o the Joint Secretary
Room No. 183A, South Block
New Delhi.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC