The Central Information Commission has set aside an order of the New Delhi Municipal Council’s First Appellate Authority (FAA) and sent an RTI dispute over a Palika Bazar shop file back for a fresh, reasoned hearing, stressing adherence to natural justice in cases involving claimed third-party information and ongoing property litigation.
In a detailed order dated 19 November 2025, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari allowed the second appeal filed by Rita Longani in case CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/137435. Longani had sought certified copies of the unit file and noting for Shop No. 136, Palika Bazar, New Delhi, for the period from 2019 to May 2024. She described herself as the owner in possession of the shop and is also a party to related civil proceedings.
The RTI application, filed on 7 May 2024, was initially rejected by the Public Information Officer of NDMC’s Estate-I Department through a reply dated 25 July 2024. The PIO claimed that the information related to a shop whose licence had not yet been transferred in the name of the appellant’s late husband, Hans Raj, and that the property continued to stand in the name of the original allottee. On this basis, the information was denied as “third party information” under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, with the PIO also pointing to a pending case titled “New Delhi Municipal Council vs Habibul Rehman and Anr.” before the Patiala House Courts.
Longani’s first appeal met the same fate. On 11 September 2024, the FAA upheld the PIO’s reply in a brief order that accepted the denial under section 8(1)(d) without delving into the appellant’s individual arguments or the nuances of her claimed interest in the property. Dissatisfied, she moved the Commission with a second appeal on 21 November 2024.
During the first hearing before the Commission on 5 August 2025, Longani was represented by advocate Diwakar Singh, while the respondent side remained absent as the notice had not been properly served. The counsel argued that Longani, as the widow of late Hans Raj and an impleaded party in the ongoing litigation over the same shop, could not be treated as a mere third party. Denying her access to the unit file and internal notings, he contended, was unjustified given that she was directly affected by the proceedings before the District Judge at Patiala House.
The Commission’s interim order of 29 September 2025 captured this dispute and granted the appellant an opportunity to substantiate her claim. She was allowed to file supporting documents to the PIO within a week, while the PIO was directed to review the RTI request afresh and consider issuing a revised reply within two weeks. The case was then adjourned to 17 November 2025 for further proceedings.
At the second hearing on 17 November, both sides appeared. NDMC’s Joint Director and PIO, Vikram Kumar, filed a written submission dated 11 November 2025 that became central to the final decision. According to the PIO, the licence deed for Shop No. 136 continues in the name of the original licensee, Habibul Rehman, with no endorsement or transfer in favour of either the appellant or her late husband. The Estate Officer’s order of 22 September 2021, on which the appellant relied, had meanwhile been set aside by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, on 17 September 2025 in PPA No. 10/2022 (NDMC vs Habibul Rehman & Anr), and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
On that basis, the PIO asserted that the documents submitted by Longani did not prove any ownership or licence rights and that the matter remained sub judice before the Estate Officer. The unit file and related records, he maintained, still involved third-party information, and the original denial under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as well as the FAA’s order, should be treated as valid.
Longani’s counsel countered that the exemption under section 8(1)(d), which protects commercial confidence and competitive interests, was misplaced in this context. He argued that disclosure of the unit file of a municipal shop under litigation would not harm any competitive position and that the factual developments now cited by the PIO, particularly the Sessions Court order, did not even exist when the original RTI application was filed. He also pointed out that many of these nuances were never addressed during the first appeal stage.
In its final order, spread across seven pages, the Commission agreed that the FAA’s earlier decision was flawed. It noted that the impugned order did not record or deal with every argument raised by the appellant, nor did it clearly reflect the factual position regarding licence rights and the sub judice status of the dispute before the Estate Officer. This omission, the Commission held, put the order at odds with the principles of natural justice and made it legally untenable.
Consequently, the Commission set aside the FAA’s order and allowed the second appeal. Rather than issuing a final direction on disclosure itself, it chose to remand the case back to the FAA for a fresh, fair hearing. The FAA has been instructed to provide an opportunity of hearing not only to the appellant but also to the concerned PIO and the third party, either in person or through virtual means. The first appeal is to be decided within eight weeks from the receipt of the Commission’s order, through a speaking order on merits that is strictly in line with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The matter had been given priority listing in compliance with an earlier direction of the Delhi High Court dated 14 July 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 9709/2025, which had asked the Commission to expedite the hearing. The latest order now shifts the responsibility back to NDMC’s internal appellate mechanism, but under a clear mandate to correct earlier lapses and hear all sides fully before deciding whether the Palika Bazar shop file can be disclosed.
Case Details : Rita Longani vs The PIO Deputy Director (Estate-I)/PIO, New Delhi Municipal Council, Estate-I Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi – 110001
