CIC orders disclosure of all records of UPA's decision to de-notify 123 Wakf properties

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the disclosure of all records related to UPA government's decision to de-notify 123 Wakf properties which enabled their title to be transferred to Delhi Wakf board.
Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad rejected the contention of urban development ministry that the issue of transfer of properties, being a matter of policy is under reconsideration consequent to the directions passed by Delhi High Court.

“Every decision of council of ministers precedes deliberation and due consultative process. Any subsequent decision modifying or altering the earlier decision would be preceded by a consultative process 'distinct' from the earlier one. Thus, the proposition that a settled policy decision of council of ministers gets unsettled merely by an act of reconsideration is untenable,” Azad said in his order.

About sixty of these 123 properties are owned by the Land and Development Office (L and DO) under the Urban Development Ministry while the rest are with Delhi Development Authority.

The decision had enabled the Wakf Board to take a call on the properties including selling them. These properties are spread over prime locations in the capital in and around Connaught Place, Mathura Road, Lodhi Road, Man Singh Road, Pandara Road, Ashoka Road, Janpath, Parliament House, Karol Bagh, Sadar Bazaar, Darya Ganj and Jangpura.

The minority affairs ministry had set up a committee of experts under the Central Wakf Council to evaluate the proposal. The expert committee backed the proposal. Hearing a plea, Azad said once a decision is taken by Council of Ministers, the matter gets over and any subsequent reconsiderations of the earlier decision would not get the benefit of exemption as contemplated under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act for records forming part of it.

Section 8(1)(b) exempts disclosure of information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.

“However, exemption would be permissible for the records forming part of subsequent consultative process in consequence of any reconsideration, decision whereof is yet to be taken. Hence, the plea of Section 8(1)(i) is not maintainable in the present set of facts,” he said.

The Information Commissioner said the plea of the Government that information could not have been disclosed since the information pertained to a cabinet decision facing challenge in Delhi High Court, at the relevant time is “grossly misplaced”.