Sobha Agarwal vs Moud on 25 March, 2010

     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
  Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                      File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001124
                         Sobha Agarwal Vs MoUD

                                                               Dated : 25.3.2010

       This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated
11.2.2010. As scheduled, the matter is called for hearing today dated
25.3.2010. Appellant present. MoUD is represented by Shri R.R.
Sharma, Dy Secretary and Shri D Nagar, SO. Shri Sharma submits
that MoUD has informed the appellant vide letter dated 10.3.2010
that it has now decided now to provide access to her to the records
pertaining to Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 and has requested
her to visit their office to take inspection of the relevant documents
for the reason that the records are voluminous. He would also submit
that the MoUD is prepared to provide full access to the records except
for one file containing draft cabinet note. He would amplify that a
Bill was introduced in the Parliament to amend the Act which was
referred to the Parliament Standing Committee. The said Committee
submitted his report to the Parliament in December, 2000. Thereafter,
recommendations of the said Committee were considered by the
MoUD and based thereon, certain amendments in the Bill are under
contemplation and a draft cabinet note has been prepared and
submitted to the Urban Development Minister. He claims exemption
under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act as far as this particular file is
concerned. However, as far as other files are concerned that he has
no objection to give inspection thereof to the appellant.

2.    On the other hand, the submission of the appellant are as
follows :-
(i)   that the RTI application was filed by her about 09 months back
      but not even a single document has been made available.
      Therefore, whatever documents are now required by her should
      be provided free of cost as per the provisions of RTI Act;
(ii) that until the intervention of the Commission the CPIO has
      been negligent in handling this matter inasmuchas no
      inspection of records relating to 1997 Amendment Bill was
      offered to her, let alone providing copies of the relevant
      documents. She, therefore, pleads that penal action should be
      taken against the CPIO.
(iii) that CPIO is reluctant to give inspection of one particular file.
      Identity of that file and the point of time when the file was
      started may be indicated to her; &
 (iv)   that denial of information under clause (i) of Section 8 (1) is
       not sustainable in law inasmuchas since 2004 Government has
       changed twice and the new Government always creates a new
       Cabinet Note.

                               DECISION
3.     As noted above, MoUD has offered inspection of all files but
for one file to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time.
This inspection will be given in next 03 weeks time. Besides, the
CPIO will also provide copies of the requested documents, free of
cost, subject to the maximum of 200 pages. If the appellant wishes to
have pages over and above 200, she will have to pay prescribed fee.
As regards the question of claiming exemption in respect of file No
12/1/2004-UCU, Shri Sharma has mentioned that based on the
recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, certain
amendments in the draft bill are under contemplation and a draft
cabinet note in this regard has been prepared. It is his plea that so
long as the matter is at deliberation stage, the information is exempted
from disclosure under clause (i) but after a decision has been taken by
the Cabinet, the exemption does not apply.

4.     I have carefully perused clause (i) of section 8 (1). The stand
taken by Shri Sharma appears to be correct. Hence, non-disclosure of
file referred to above at this stage is sustained. As regards the
question of imposition of penalty on CPIO, it is noticed that the CPIO
had responded to the RTI application vide his letter dated 15.7.2009.
Given the fact that he RTI application was filed on 25.6.2009, the
response of the CPIO appears to be will within the period of 30 days
and, therefore, there appears to be no case for imposition of penalty.

5.     The matter is decided accordingly.
                                                                   Sd/-
                                                      (M.L. Sharma)
                                   Central Information Commissioner


      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.


(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
 Address of parties :-
1.

Shri R.R. Sharma
Dy Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001

2. Ms Sobha Aggarwal
4/14 A, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002