New Delhi: The Central Information Commission on June 25 came to the aid of a 90-year-old woman, who claimed to be the ‘chachi’ (paternal aunt) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and had been surviving on a meagre rental income of Rs 1,500 as BWWF Dispensary Vadnagar to which she had leased out her building in Ahmedabad, Gujarat had not increased the rent since 2008 and had been paying her just about a tenth of the market rate.
‘Staying alone, on rental income of Rs 1,500’
Taking up the plea of Dahiben Narottam Modi, who had filed an application under the Right to Information Act 2005 on 11 points pertaining to her ownership and leasing out of her property to BWWF Dispensary Vadnagar, which comes under welfare commissioner in Gujarat, Central Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu recorded that “she is all alone, surviving solely on the rental income of Rs 1,500 from this building”.
The CIC also noted that Dahiben had stated that “her request for revision of rent was pending since 2008” and she had therefore sought some information from the department on October 25, 2017. The queries pertained to the first engagement of rent of house, the rent fixed at initial stage, the duration of the lease and subsequent renewals, the date of last renewal of lease, the formula for revising the rent and the reasons for the rent being so less in comparison with the market rate of Rs 15,000 per month among other things. She had also asked that since the rent was to be revised every five years, and several such spells of five years had passed, if the department would pay the arrears for each spell.
Surviving on the paltry rent she earned despite being the owner of a property worth crores, Dahiben also wrote: “Under the circumstances, if your department is not ready to redress my complaints then I have to think twice to renew the lease which was never affordable.”
Welfare commissioner’s office pleaded she had not provided documents asked for revision of rent
The central public information officer and assistant welfare commissioner, (Central) Ahmedabad, T.B. Moitra replied on December 21, 2017, that in the initial days, the monitoring of the building file of BWWF Dispensary Vadnagar was being dealt with at WC Office, Bhilwara (now Ajmer) and his office there was not in a position to furnish the details sought.
He also acknowledged that the reassessment was pending since 2008 as WC Ajmer had on May 15, 2018 reiterated this fact and advised the elderly lady to submit all the requisite documents of PWD/CPWD but there was “no proper compliance” of the same. Also, he said, the building had to be assessed by local PWD/CPWD authorities in Gujarat.
Dahiben claimed she needed information to submit forms
Dahiben filed an appeal stating that if the information was not available with Moitra’s office, the same should have been collected. Also, she stated that unless and until the date of latest renewal of the lease and amount of rent thereon was submitted by his office, she could not assess and provide details of the date of reassessment, which was pending. She also stated that she had submitted all requisite documents on July 2, 2014.
‘Welfare commissioner’s office didn’t help in collection of information’
She had also submitted that the welfare commissioner’s office was “supposed to collect all the information with respect to Point No 5 to 9 from PWD authorities and to furnish the same to me to avoid further delay of news assessment of lease for renewal”.
The woman had also pleaded in 2014, that she was “a 87-year-old widow having no son. My daily bread is received from the rent of this house alone and no another income or properties are there.”
She had also submitted that “I am the real aunt (chachi/kaaki) of Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and if justice is not given to me, then entire matter will be reported to the PM”.
CIC recorded increase in rent
Central Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu. Credit: cic.gov.in
Acharyulu observed that the record did not show any evidence of processing first appeal and that there was no First Appellate Authority order on record. The public authority only provided four annexures which showed how rent was fixed at Rs 600 per month in 1983, increased to Rs 800 per month in 1990, and subsequently to Rs 1,500 in 1998. One of the annexures also pertained to a letter of July 2014 seeking blueprint of the building, undertaking to carry out annual repairs or special repairs by landlord etc.
On May 25 this year, welfare and cess commissioner S.S. Bhople wrote a letter to the Central Information Commission after receiving a hearing notice stating that “a fresh lease agreement is executed after expiry of tenure which is mutually agreed to by both the parties, the formula for revising the rent shall be in accordance with the prevailing rules and regulations….”
He also admitted that after expiry of tenure of last lease agreement, the office had requested the landlord in 2002 and in 2008 to “submit fresh documents for rent revision”. “On July 2, 2014, the landlord requested revision of rent to the tune of Rs 10,000 per month which was replied to by this office letter dated July 31, 2014. Since no reply was forthcoming, this office again has sent a letter dated October 25, 2017 requesting to submit documents so as to take up the matter with PWD/CPWD for rent revision,” he further said.
In the hearing before the Commission on June 21, Moitra claimed that in spite of their requests, the appellant did not file requisite documents, because of which they could not revise the rent. Modi’s representative submitted that unless information she had asked for was submitted to her, she could cannot submit the documents sought. Also, it was submitted on her behalf that she had already submitted all the relevant papers in the Mehsana office.
‘Despite being PM’s aunt, Dahiben did not use her influence on authorities’
On hearing both the sides and going through the records, Acharyulu observed: “The Commission felt sad for the harassment of a nonagenarian woman because of non-responsive attitude of the officers of public authority, both as a land-lady and information seeker. Though she is related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, she did not use that to influence the authorities. She did not even mention it in her RTI application but sought for information as a citizen and requested for revision of rent or vacating building.”
He also chastised the office of the welfare commissioner for not showing “any concern for her helplessness” and asking her to produce some documents in multiple copies, which they could have easily prepared. “Though she submitted those papers, they did not try to get them from Mehsana office,” he recorded.
‘Elderly lady only cautioned officers about approaching PM on being denied information’
Acharyulu said when information request was inadequately answered, she filed a first appeal explaining her helplessness. He said it was only thereafter that she revealed that “she was chachi/kaaki of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and warned the officers to report against them to her nephew (PM).”
But the officers, he said, in their usual manner still ignored the entire letter and insisted on production of documents and some papers to be given by the PWD department of Gujarat and so “her harassment continued”. Incidentally, the words of appreciation for the elderly lady from Acharyulu assume significance as he was the CIC who had ordered Delhi University to release information on Prime Minister Modi’s educational qualification and had subsequently been divested of the charge of human resource development ministry by the Chief Information Commissioner.
Commission directs release of all information to Dahiben
In his order, Acharyulu had directed the Secretary PWD (B&R) Mehsana, Ahmedabad to provide all necessary documents needed for the re-assessment or revision of the rent rate to the public authority, i.e., welfare commissioner, with a copy to the appellant. Noting that welfare commissioner Bhople as custodian of the records was also the deemed CPIO in this case, he also asked him to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him, for not furnishing complete information. The officer has also been asked to appear before the Commission to explain measures taken by his office regarding the complaint of Dahiben and to inform her by what time her lease deed will be revised and when arrears would be paid.
The matter would be next heard by the panel on July 23.