Gujarat SIC Rules Heritage Property Information in Ahmedabad as Public, Not Private
In a landmark decision, the Gujarat State Information Commission (SIC) has declared that information related to Unesco-listed heritage properties in Ahmedabad's walled city is public and should not be considered private. The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Pankaj Bhatt, a resident of Kalupur, under Section 19 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Bhatt had filed an RTI application seeking details from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) about a heritage property located at Khadia crossroads in Golwad, Ahmedabad. The RTI request sought information regarding actions taken between January 7, 2019, and March 7, 2023, concerning inter-departmental communications related to the property. Specifically, Bhatt was interested in information about the cessation of construction on the site and any potential irregularities in its resumption.
According to the SIC order, Bhatt argued that the property in question held historical significance, particularly in relation to India’s independence struggle. He asserted that the construction permit issues and the delay in resuming construction raised concerns about possible misconduct. As the property is a heritage site, Bhatt believed that the requested information should be publicly accessible and not be classified as personal.
The AMC’s public information officer (PIO) had initially denied Bhatt’s request, citing that the documents related to the property had been forwarded to the BPSP (Building Permission and Sub-Division Plan) department, making the information unavailable. The first appellate authority within AMC also upheld the PIO’s decision, arguing that certain details could not be shared due to concerns about personal information.
However, Bhatt disagreed, arguing that such information, including construction permits and their nature (whether residential or commercial), was publicly available for all zones. He believed it was in the public interest to disclose this data.
State Information Commissioner Nikhil Bhatt sided with the appellant, observing that the information sought by Pankaj Bhatt had significant public interest, particularly due to the historical relevance of the property. He directed the PIO to provide the requested details within 30 days. The commission also noted that the first appellate authority had appeared to shield the information on the basis of exemptions regarding personal information, potentially preventing transparency about possible irregularities.
This decision has set an important precedent, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the management of heritage properties and the accessibility of information about them to the public.
