Ameenee Magu redevelopment deal disclosure order appealed

The state has challenged the High Court's decision upholding the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM) directive to the housing ministry to disclose the agreement for the Ameenee Magu redevelopment project. A private individual requested the agreement and blueprints under the RTI Act, but the ministry refused, citing financial interests of a third party (RDC, a state agency). The High Court ruled that state agencies are not included as third parties under the law, so there was no legal ground to refuse. The ministry appealed to the Supreme Court. The case highlights the applicability of RTI to state-owned companies.

The state has challenged the High Court's decision upholding the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM) directive to the housing ministry to disclose the agreement for the Ameenee Magu redevelopment project. A private individual requested the agreement and blueprints under the RTI Act, but the ministry refused, citing financial interests of a third party (RDC, a state agency). The High Court ruled that state agencies are not included as third parties under the law, so there was no legal ground to refuse. The ministry appealed to the Supreme Court. The case highlights the applicability of RTI to state-owned companies.

The state has challenged the High Court's decision upholding the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM) directive to the housing ministry to disclose the agreement for the Ameenee Magu redevelopment project. A private individual requested the agreement and blueprints under the RTI Act, but the ministry refused, citing financial interests of a third party (RDC, a state agency). The High Court ruled that state agencies are not included as third parties under the law, so there was no legal ground to refuse. The ministry appealed to the Supreme Court. The case highlights the applicability of RTI to state-owned companies.

This story involves 1 source and may affect public understanding of court appeal / ameenee magu.