Even as Dina Wadia, 88, is in Mumbai, Central Information Commission (CIC) chief Wajahat Habibullah has given 21 days’ time
NEW DELHI: Even as Dina Wadia, 88, is in Mumbai, Central Information Commission (CIC) chief Wajahat Habibullah has given 21 days’ time to the ministry of external affairs (MEA) to initiate an exercise to determine which part of the information, sought by her son Nusli Wadia regarding the ownership of the mansion, “is sensitive or is likely to affect adversely India’s relations with a foreign State”.
Wadia had sought information about his grandfather’s property which was denied to him. He put up an application with the CIC on January 24, 2007, where he had said the Pakistan government had officially announced that it was “abandoning its claim on Jinnah House”. Wadia had noted, it was incumbent upon the Central Public Information Officer to disclose the reasons why the documents relating to Jinnah House could be “categorised as exempted under RTI”.
CIC’s direction on June 19, assumes significance in view of Wadia’s claim that UPA’s predecessor NDA government in 2001 took the decision that Dina Wadia is the rightful owner of the mansion, being the only heir of its owner MA Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. The then external affairs minister Jaswant Singh has affirmed that he had “indeed made certain recommendations” on the basis of attorney general (AG) Soli J Sorabjee’s report “which had been approved by then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee”.
Wadia said Sorabjee, after studying the papers, had opined that Dina Wadia being the only child and lone heir of MA Jinnah, would be entitled to all his properties including Jinnah House. Wadia said “the non-disclosure of documents is to frustrate the rights of Dina Wadia in the writ petition filed by her in the Bombay High Court’’.
Wadia said “he believes the documents were selectively disclosed to create an impression that there was only one decision taken in respect of Jinnah House, namely, not to restore or grant the same to Dina Wadia and that the documents showing a different decision had been earlier taken had been deliberately withheld’’.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}