Vikas Verma v. The Director (Mrts-I) & Cpio Ministry of Urban Development

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 02, 2016 "bs/gsr"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2nd March, 2016. + W.P.(C) No. 2927/2015 VIKAS VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh and Ms. Malavika Prasad, Advs. Versus THE DIRECTOR (MRTS-I) & CPIO, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, CGP for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns the decision dated 4th February, 2015 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) of dismissal of second appeal (File No.CIC/KY/A/2014/000883) preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10th July, 2014 of the First Appellate Authority upholding the denial dated 29th May, 2014 by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent, "The Director (MRTS-I), Ministry of Urban Development (MUD), New Delhi" of the information sought by the petitioner on the grounds under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. (Though in the order of CIC the ground of denial is mentioned as Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act but both counsels agreed that it is a typographical error for Section 8(1)(i)). 2. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner stated that no rejoinder is required thereto. The counsels were heard on 6th October, 2015 and judgment reserved with a direction to the counsel for the respondent Union of India (UOI) to handover the file containing the decision that all the issues relating to Airport Line be placed before the Cabinet for consideration / directions, as was argued. Liberty was also given to the parties to file written synopsis of their submissions. In pursuance thereto, a synopsis has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner and which has been perused. The counsel for the respondent UOI has also handed over the concerned file. 3. It is the case of the petitioner: (i) that the MUD, Govt. of India constituted a two members Enquiry Committee to enquire into the defects in the civil structures of the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line; (ii) that the petitioner, from the newspaper reports gathered that the Committee so constituted submitted its report to the MUD on 30th March, 2013; (iii) that the petitioner on 13th May, 2014 applied to the PIO of the MUD for a copy of the report and supplementary notes submitted by the said Committee along with copies of the correspondence between the MUD and the Enquiry Committee and to also allow inspection of copy of file notings by officers of the MUD and all records relating to proceedings of the Enquiry Committee; (iv) that the PIO of the office of Director (MRTS-I) of MUD vide response dated 29th May, 2014 informed the petitioner that the various issues relating to information sought were being put up to the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) on Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) for its consideration and Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure decisions of the Council of Minsters, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken, till the decision has been taken and the matter is complete or over; (v) that the petitioner preferred a first appeal but the First Appellate Authority of the MUD but which also vide communication dated 10th July, 2014 informed that all issues relating to Airport Line including findings of Enquiry Committee were being placed before the Cabinet for consideration and hence could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(i) of the Act. In addition, it was also reasoned that the petitioner was an employee of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL) and there was an arbitration going on between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and DAMEPL on the issue of termination of concession agreement and that the report of the Enquiry Committee might be a part of the arbitration and for this reason also could not be given; (vi) that the petitioner being unsatisfied pre