Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
akhilesh yadav

HP: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra asks HP govt not to divulge her property details

Recommended Posts

akhilesh yadav

Congress president Sonia Gandhi's daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has requested the Himachal Pradesh government not to divulge her property details in the state since that can put her life in danger.

 

 

Priyanka wrote to the state government following a July 2014 RTI query by activist Debashish Bhattacharya. According to the Shimla deputy commissioner, the information cannot be shared as Priyanka is an SPG protectee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more at: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra asks HP govt not to divulge her property details : North, News - India Today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

What is end result from HP ?

How revealing property details of a person pose a threat to life particularly for a person who enjoys SPG protection ?

Can some one raise the same plea ?

If the contention is true, who can protect the common and ordinary applicants ?

Is the threat to applicant or to third party ?

Strange. Some things not easy to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
premssingh86

आम आदमी की जान को तो जैसे कोई खतरा है ही नहीँ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Will disclosing Priyanka Gandhi's land information pose danger to her security? CIC to decide

 

NEW DELHI: The chief information commissioner of Himachal Pradesh is set to decide if disclosing details concerning a piece of land acquired by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra near Shimla could pose a danger to her security.

 

 

In an ongoing RTI appeal in Shimla, advocate for Gandhi, through a person holding the power of attorney on her behalf, has claimed that if the information emerged in public it would have a direct bearing on her security. The advocate said the applicant is not entitled to any information pertaining to the plot since it would be exempted under section 8, which deals with information regarding third party.

 

 

And then he added, it is "further fortified by the letter of Special Protection Group dated 21.11.2014, advising the concerned authorities to withhold the information pertaining to the present objectioner, same having the direct bearing on her security and physical safety."

 

 

The reply filed on behalf of Gandhi through her SPA (special power of attorney) S Ramakrishnan, also submitted a single page letter from SPG director Durga Prasad dated November 21, 2014. The letter addressed Gandhi said, "The issue has been examined and SPG is of the opinion that information having direct bearing on the security arrangements may be withheld from disclosures." However, it does not specify what is the information that would have direct bearing on the security arrangements.

 

 

Activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya filed the RTI application with DC Shimla in July 2014 seeking file notings, copies of sale deeds, relaxations being given etc, regarding the land bought by Gandhi. Ever since then, the RTI has been shuttling from one office to another, and has now been placed before the state chief information commissioner.

 

 

The additional district magistrate who had in July 2014 asked tehsildar Shimla(rural) to provide all necessary information, a month later said the information asked for would be treated as third party information, and issued notice to a local resident who then had the power of attorney on behalf of Priyanka Gandhi.

 

 

According to reports, Gandhi had been building her summer home in Charabbra village near Shimla. Report said she had bought the nearly one acre plot for around Rs 47 lakh around 2007.

 

Read More: Will disclosing Priyanka Gandhi's land information pose danger to her security? CIC to decide - The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

TNN, 5 March, 2015.

 

NEW DELHI: The chief information commissioner of Himachal Pradesh is set to decide if disclosing details concerning a piece of land acquired by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra near Shimla could pose a danger to her security.

 

In an ongoing RTI appeal in Shimla, advocate for Gandhi, through a person holding the power of attorney on her behalf, has claimed that if the information emerged in public it would have a direct bearing on her security. The advocate said the applicant is not entitled to any information pertaining to the plot since it would be exempted under section 8, which deals with information regarding third party.

 

And then he added, it is "further fortified by the letter of Special Protection Group dated 21.11.2014, advising the concerned authorities to withhold the information pertaining to the present objectioner, same having the direct bearing on her security and physical safety."

 

The reply filed on behalf of Gandhi through her SPA (special power of attorney) S Ramakrishnan, also submitted a single page letter from SPG director Durga Prasad dated November 21, 2014. The letter addressed Gandhi said, "The issue has been examined and SPG is of the opinion that information having direct bearing on the security arrangements may be withheld from disclosures." However, it does not specify what is the information that would have direct bearing on the security arrangements.

 

Activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya filed the RTI application with DC Shimla in July 2014 seeking file notings, copies of sale deeds, relaxations being given etc, regarding the land bought by Gandhi. Ever since then, the RTI has been shuttling from one office to another, and has now been placed before the state chief information commissioner.

 

The additional district magistrate who had in July 2014 asked tehsildar Shimla(rural) to provide all necessary information, a month later said the information asked for would be treated as third party information, and issued notice to a local resident who then had the power of attorney on behalf of Priyanka Gandhi.

 

According to reports, Gandhi had been building her summer home in Charabbra village near Shimla. Report said she had bought the nearly one acre plot for around Rs 47 lakh around 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

That means that both PIO and FAA has concurred with appellant's submission, though they can as well over rule her request on bonafide grounds.

If the same happens with our Great Jagan or some other well known politicians in AP, there should have been much huge and cry from Congress stalwarts.

Now they have valid ground to postpone such issues for another two years (As APIC takes minimum two years from now) to decide the appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akhilesh yadav

[h=1]प्रियंका गांधी को कैसे मिली घर के लिए जमीन? आयोग ने कहा, RTI कार्यकर्ता को 10 दिन में दें जानकारी[/h]#Shimla #उत्तराखंड हिमाचल प्रदेश सूचना आयोग में प्रियंका गांधी वाड्रा मामले में सोमवार को अपना फैसला सुना दिया है. आयोग के आदेश के अनुसार, अब आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता देव आशीष भट्टाचार्य को 10 दिनों के भीतर छराबड़ा में प्रियंका गांधी के मकान की जमीन की जानकारी देने का आदेश दिया है.

आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता ने सूचना मांगी थी कि प्रियंका गांधी को शिमला में मकान बनाने के लिए जमीन कैसे मिली थी.

इस मामले में प्रियंका गांधी के वकील का कहना था कि वह एसपीजी प्रोटेक्टी के नाते उन्*हें आरटीआई से बाहर रखा गया है. उनका तर्क था कि जानकारी देने से उनकी जान को खतरा हो सकता है.

 

 

Read more at: http://hindi.news18.com/news/uttarakhand/the-commission-decided-now-priyanka-vadra-will-have-give-information-to-rti-activist-in-10-days-for-her-house-485509.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Makan ki jamin ke bare me jankari denese suraxa ko kaise khatara pahunchta hay ye baat samaj me nahi aati.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh State Information Commission rejected the contention that information regarding purchase of land by Priyanka Vadra near here cannot be given for security reasons and directed the concerned authorities to provide all information in this regard to an RTI activist within ten days.

 

The RTI activist Debasheesh Bhattacharya had sought information about the land purchased by Priyanka at Chharabra, 12-Km from here, but the information was refused by Public information officer, Read more at;

Info on Land Purchased by Priyanka Can Be Made Public, Rules Information Panel - The New Indian Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akhilesh yadav

Information on Priyanka Vadra's Shimla Deal Wrongly Withheld, Says Commission

 

SHIMLA: The details of how Priyanka Gandhi Vadra bought land near Shimla must be revealed within 10 days, the top most officers of the Information Commission of Himachal Pradesh have ruled today.

 

Mrs Vadra is the daughter of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress, which is in power in Himachal Pradesh.

 

Information on her real estate purchases in Himachal Pradesh - she reportedly has bought two pieces of land - was sought last year by Debashish Bhattacharya, a Right to Information (RTI) activist. Information Commission officials had said the details should be shared, but the officer handling the RTI application did not comply. He has been asked today to explain why he should not be penalised for ignoring the commission's instructions.

 

Read more at: Information on Priyanka Vadra's Shimla Deal Wrongly Withheld, Says Commission

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akhilesh yadav

[h=1]SPG opinion on Priyanka land unauthorized: SIC[/h][h=1]SHIMLA: Reacting to the opinion offered by the Special Protection Group (SPG) to withhold documents related to Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's property in Shimla for security reasons, the State Information Commission, has said that SPG provides protection to the person and not to his or her properties. In its recent order, the commission said that no SPG protectee, including the Prime Minister of India, had ever taken this plea before the Election Commission that his or her life will be endangered by the disclosure of details of his or her immoveable property.[/h]

Read more at: SPG opinion on Priyanka land unauthorized: SIC - The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

While directing authorities here to provide to an RTI activist information about land purchased by Priyanka Vadra, the Himachal Pradesh State Information Commission maintained that "no one can claim that a VIP is not covered" under the transparency law.

 

The SIC made strong observations over the order passed by First Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner) withholding information about the land purchased by Priyanka at Chharabra, 13 km from here, relying solely on the opinion of Special Protection Group (SPG) which had strongly objected to the disclosure of the information to RTI activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya.Read more at;

 

No one can claim VIP not covered under RTI: HP SIC in Priyanka Vadra case | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

SHIMLA: Before Priyanka Gandhi Vadra can file an appeal in the Himachal Pradesh high court against the June 29 orders of State Information Commission (SIC), directing disclosure of her land deals in Shimla in public interest, RTI activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya has filed a caveat in HC. On Monday, the HC had ordered the Shimla additional district magistrate (ADM) to disclose the information on land deal within 10 days from the date of announcement of the order.Read more at;

 

Priyanka property: RTI activist files caveat in HC - The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

The Congress-led Himachal government may have last year turned down an RTI plea seeking information on Priyanka Gandhi’s under-construction house at Charabra, but the previous BJP regime under Prem Kumar Dhumal had provided entire details to another applicant around four years ago.

The Deputy Commissioner’s office had, citing security reasons as Priyanka was an SPG-protectee, declined information about the property, 15 km from here, to RTI activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya on July 2, 2014.Read more at;

 

4 years ago, BJP govt didn?t hide info on Priyanka?s house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon Manoj Sir,

 

"Himachal Pradesh State Information Commission maintained that "no one can claim that a VIP is not covered" under the transparency law"

Is there any such specific exemption to SC Judges alone ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

Enclosed in this post, an attached file containing the decision of the Himachal Pradesh Information commission directing the public authority to disclose the land purchase details of Priyanka Gandhi.

 

The Information commission relied on Section 22 of the RTI act, 2005 which has a overriding effect on the SPG Act, to the extent of inconsistency and overruled the claim by the public authority claiming exemption based on SPG Act, and Section 8(1) of the RTI act, 2005.

HP Information commission - Property registration details of Priyanka Vadra to be disclosed.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Public interest litigations (PILs) and Right to Information (RTI) queries are amongst the most potent tools available to any citizen in a democracy, particularly like ours, to seek information, establish accountability, ensure justice and uphold rule of law. Both these tools are protected under various provisions of the Constitution and undoubtedly form a part of our constitutional and fundamental rights. It is in exercise of these rights, that courts and Information Commissioners, both Central and State commissioners, who are vested with the same powers as that of a Civil Court under the RTI Act, perform their judicial and quasi-judicial functions in so far as adjudication is concerned. And while these bodies are expected to decide matters that come before them in the interest of the public, thereby preventing it from being trampled upon by state or public authorities, we must guard against the tendency of "judicial activism" turning into "judicial mis-adventurism" and "public interest litigations and petitions" being used as a veil for furthering vested private and political interests.Read more at;

 

Shehzad Poonawalla's Blog : Why Himachal Information Commission order against Priyanka Gandhi is a worrying case of quasi-judicial over-reach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

With due respects to Shehzad, he touched only the aspect of "Third party interest" and Act stipulates any information available on record of Public authority which is not confidential and amounts to personal invasion (Not exempted) should be provided.

Common men like me could not understand the problem/issue of security and link to information, if it is a threat to those third parties, threats are there to each and every citizen from any source, as no one enjoys protection under law all the time.

I also do not understand as to why 'larger public interest" involvement when the information is not exempted under RTI Act.

If some one is clean, what is the harm if country knows about such information making the image more popular for such honest disclosures without obstructing on silly grounds.

This is just a view and not to open 'Pandora's box" for, pro etc., labels, which is not known to me and as a citizen I can only look issue as per RTI Act alone and not other considerations/factors not relevant to that issue other than RTI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

In how many cases of agriculture land purchased by non agriculturalist businessmen, the said applicant has filed RTI application in larger public interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Come on Hon Manoj,

Because he has applied for information, one can not ask as why he has not sought information on others.

It is the responsibility of authority to look into such aspects.

May be, now it paves the way for bringing into light several such unauthorised purchases and officials may be extra careful because of the exposure, or business men might desist that now they can not hide any thing and taint the image of business house.

Any way, single RTI Application and it's follow up till logical conclusion is reached is a great effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

HC issues show-cause notice to state info commissioners

 

 

The Himachal Pradesh high court on Friday admitted Priyanka Gandhi’s contempt plea in a land case and issued show-cause notice to chief information commissioner Bhim Sen and information commissioner KD Batish.

 

 

The HC asked the two officials as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against them for deliberately disobeying the court’s order.

 

 

Special double bench comprising justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and justice PS Rana also stayed further proceedings pending before the state information commission in the matter pertaining to land purchased by Priyanka at Charabara near Shimla for construction.

 

 

Listing the case for September 11, the court directed both Bhimsen and Batish to remain present during the next hearing. The court had on July 7 stayed the commission's June 29 order directing Shimla district administration to divulge information on land purchased by Priyanka to RTI activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya.

 

 

Priyanka had also filed an application before the court demanding a stay on different orders of division bench of Sen and Batish that directed deputy commissioner (DC), additional district magistrate (ADM) and sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) to reveal the information on land bought by her. She also submitted that the matter was interlinked to the previous petition that was filed to challenge the SIC’s June 29 order.

 

 

Batish had argued, "Even top political figures such as the Prime Minister and former PMs with SPG protection provide information about their immovable and movable assets in their election affidavits.”

Despite stay, the state information commission on July 23 heard Shimla DC and other officials in the case and asked why information was not given in time to the activist. Priyanka’s counsel submitted that the high court had put a stay on proceedings, but the commission maintained that it was not committing any contempt.

 

 

On July 23, the commission had directed the Shimla district administration to file a reply on delay in giving the information the under RTI Act. On July 25, the commission again issued notices to the Shimla additional district magistrate and the staff concerned for ‘concealing' the information in the case.

 

 

Case files

 

 

Nov 19: RTI activist moves state information commission to seek info on land purchased by Priyanka near Shimla, files second appeal

June 29: State information commission directs DC to divulge information

July 6: Priyanka moves HC against order

July 7: HC stays information panel‘s order

July 23: Panel issues notice to DC, ADM and SDM over delay in providing information to RTI activist

July 25: Shimla ADM gets another notice for ‘concealing’ information

Aug 3: Priyanka files plea in HC seeking stay on panel’s notices to DC and others

Aug 4: Priyanka files a contempt plea

Aug 7: HC issues show-cause notices to both information commissioners

 

 

===========================

 

 

Also read:

 

 

 

 

Priyanka Vadra's Land Deal: Himachal High Court Summons State Chief Information Commissioner

 

Priyanka?s land deal: Himachal HC summons state CIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

For those who are interested in the "contempt" part.....

 

Attached is the initial stay order of the High Court as well as today's order on the contempt proceedings.

 

My opinion is that the "contempt" order of the Hon'ble HC is incorrect. But I will not share my thought process / reasoning lest the particular SCIC/IC be reading this thread !

 

Of course ALL ICs in the country will be too scared and will wait for bated breath to see what happens on 11 September 2015.

 

Enjoy and let the fun start !

 

CWP2294315070715.pdf

COPC2069315070815.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

There was already a heated debate as to involvement of outside agencies when there is remedy under RTI Act (Sec.23)

Is it applicable only for applicants or to outsiders (third party) is also an issue to be debated.

Whether HC can order a stay in RTI matter is also controversial because of Sec.23.

(They have more clever/smart Advocates who charge abnormal sums to give a simple advice/argue before HC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rameshverma

The information requested was disclosure of permission granted to Ms Priyanka Gandhi u/s 118 of HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 and other ancillary details like sale deed executed in respect of this land. While disposing of the appeal Ld. ICs have arrived at correct conclusion in allowing disclosure of information by taking into consideration the larger public interest involved. In Himachal outsiders are not permitted to purchase land without express permission from Govt. u/s 118. The permission under this Section is granted by taking recourse to Rule 38 of HP Tenancy & Land Reform Rules, 1975 for certain specified purposes enumerated therein. Since no vested right exists in anyone for purchasing the land except with permission of Govt, citizens has every right to demand disclosure of information in larger public interest and Govt. cannot be permitted to keep the information close to its chest. High court granted interim relief on the strength that commission has not appreciated implications of S. 8(1)(g) in its correct perspective. This section grants exemption if there is a threat to life or physical safety of any person by permitting disclosure of requested information. The kind of information requested was very innocuous as no personal details were sought except the permission granted by Govt. and other consequential actions thereafter. No details regarding building map approved by the authority was sought which has the potential to pose a threat to life of physical safety of the third party considering the fact that she is a SPG protectee, thus the restricted covenant of 8(1)(g) is not attracted . Such kind of information is supposed to be in public domain as per mandate of S. 4. Since the Commissions didn’t accepted the exemption of 8(1)(g), section 8(2) does not come into play. The Act does not recognise status of a person being relevant for deciding the issues under its provisions. The decision of Commission was right. But the third party was also correct in invoking jurisdiction of HC and HC was entitled to go into merits of the decision of commission as a Writ Court and has only granted interim stay. Final decision of HC may go in favour of RTI querist. The writ court is not precluded in entertaining the petition by bar of S. 23.

 

Mr. Bhattacharya has also filed other queries regarding permissions granted by Govt. u/s 118 and the Commission has acceded to the same and directed all DCs to disclose the information. He is a relentless RTI crusader aiming for transparency in actions of Govt. in Himachal. He deserves the appreciation for this and I do the same. Excellent work, Sir.

 

Coming to second part of contempt committed by ICs.

 

S. 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the Civil Contempt as- civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. In this case it is a fact that Commission was notified about the interim order made by HC which stayed the decision and other proceedings initiated by it. Despite the stay commission continued hearing the matter in utter disregard to the stay granted by HC. Hence it is beyond any pale of doubt that commission committed wilful disobedience of interim order of jurisdictional HC whose orders are binding on the commission. Since action of commissioners is wilful, deliberate and in clear disregard of Court's order, it amounts to civil contempt. Contempt proceedings are not criminal proceedings but are proceedings of summary nature. The ICs are also not entitled to claim immunity under Judges Protection Act as they are not judicial officers of a Court and Commission is not a Court. The issue is in its rudimentary stage as notices only have been issued to the ICs and they have been afforded full opportunity to explain their conduct of indulging in judicial indiscipline. My take on it is that finally the HC will let the ICs off the hook with advice to stick to judicial discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

It appears that Hon Karira has posted the same with all attachments and was silent on why to HC's orders are not proper and provoked members for interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      Recently PIO of public authority, in a RTI application submitted u/s 6 of the RTI Act, responded to applicant after the stipulated time, you please visit the office of his junior and inspect the file/files, and after inspection of the files obtain the documents by depositing the money itself. Therefore, please provide expert opinions about the issue, as in my opinion no such provision do available to PIO to direct the information seekers under RTI Act. However if applicant desires himself to inspect the files, then option available to applicant to file the RTI application under section 2(j)(I) of the RTI act.
    • momita
      By momita
      59 persons have been given Z security, 109 have been given Y-plus, 34 have been given Y and 82 persons have been given X category security.
      LUCKNOW: The Central government has provided categorized security cover to 308 persons, out of which 24 have been provided the highest Z-plus cover, according to the answer to an RTI query.

      As per information provided by S.C.L. Das, Joint Secretary in the Union Home Ministry to city-based activist Nutan Thakur, two dozen persons have been given Z-plus security, 59 persons have been given Z security, 109 have been given Y-plus, 34 have been given Y and 82 persons have been given X category security.
       

      View full entry

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy