Info on Priyanka’s Shimla deal wrongly withheld, says CIC

Info on Priyanka’s Shimla deal wrongly withheld, says CIC
x
Highlights

Info On Priyanka’s Shimla Deal Wrongly Withheld, Says CIC. 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.

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.

Priyanka Gandhi is building her dream holiday cottage on the site. Passing its judgment on the appeal filed by Right to Information (RTI) activist Debashish Bhattacharya, a division bench of the SIC court comprising chief information commissioner (CIC) Bhim Sen and state information commissioner Kalidass Batish allowed the appeal and directed the first appellate authority, Shimla DC, to come out with relevant information within 10 days in "larger public interest".

On the next hearing fixed on July 23, the CIC has summoned both the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority (Shimla additional magistrate).

In the orders, the SIC maintained that even top political figures such as the Prime Minister and former prime ministers, who also were under top levels of security, shared details of their assets in election affidavits.

Priyanka special, DC had argued

On December 23, 2014, the Shimla DC had stayed the interim orders of the second public information commissioner (additional DC), observing that disclosing a rule related to a VVIP guarded by Special Protection Group (SPG) was not permitted; besides, the security of the VVIP was the state's responsibility and the site in question was in the "core protected zone". He had referred to a letter (15/DPG/VS/2009(4) 1332) from the SPG that the information being sought had direct bearing on the security arrangements and, thus, it be withheld.

The DC had maintained that Priyanka was in a separate and distinct class and the appellant could not compare self with her.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENTS