Central Information Commission
Shri P.K. Sharma vs Ministry Of Earth Science on 26 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00777
Dated, the 26th November, 2008.
Appellant : Shri P.K. Sharma
Respondents : Ministry of Earth Science
This matter was heard on 24.11.2008 in the presence of the respondents' representatives, Ms.Vasudha Gupta, Director and Shri T.R. Gill, Deputy Secretary. Appellant was initially absent, but came later in the day and requested for a hearing, which was held when the respondents' rep. had already left.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 20.12.2007, appellant had asked for certain details regarding the property of a third-party, Shri K.S. Subramanian. These details were apparently submitted by that third-party to the public authority for the purpose of grant of a House Building Advance. Appellant's point is that since these documents were necessary to grant and release of the House Building Advance, this could not be treated as private and personal documents of the third-party and should be authorized to be disclosed.
3. Respondents' plea that the information is properly the private information of the appellant and since its disclosure would serve no public purpose, it was clearly barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Commission has come across several such petitions by parties seeking information related to public servants ⎯ such as lease deed and other such information as furnished by public servants in order to take certain benefits from the public authority, such as House Building Advance as in this case. Very often the purpose for disclosure of such information is personal enmity and other forms of animus which subsists between two employees or an employee and another person.
5. It is important, that about determination of the disclosability of this variety of information, strict criteria be applied lest RTI becomes a play thing in the hands of people wanting to settle personal scores with public servants or a game of one-upmanship between public servants. One sure way of evaluating disclosability of all such information is to apply to it the public interest test. If disclosure of an information known to be the private information of a public servant, but passed on into the control of public authority in pursuance of a certain requirement, is to be authorized, it should be only on grounds that it Page 1 of 2 serves larger public interest. According to me, the information as requested in this RTI-application is doubtless the personal information of the third-party, who happens to be a public servant. Mere fact that the public servant has placed this information in the charge of a public authority, does not alter the character of the information. In other words, a "private" information does not become "public", merely because it comes in the control of a public authority. Such information cannot be authorized to be disclosed unless it is established that such disclosure would sub-serve an identifiable public interest or public purpose.
6. During his personal submission before the Commission, appellant stated that the House Building Advance in the present case has been claimed by the third-party by producing forged documents. Appellant wants to access these documents in order to establish that alleged forgery. Appellant has argued that bringing out into open alleged acts of forgery, brings the matter within the scope of "public interest".
7. Commission has no other evidence that the allegation as made by the appellant is true. He produced no such evidence either. It would be difficult to come to a conclusion about the alleged forgery on the basis of an oral statement of the appellant.
8. However, it is also important that the truth in this matter is brought out.
9. In view of the above, it is directed that the head of the public authority ⎯ in this case the Secretary, Ministry of Earth Science ⎯ shall have an enquiry conducted as to the genuineness and the validity of the documents submitted by the third-party to claim House Building Advance and, specifically whether there was any forgery in the submitted documents. This enquiry should be completed within six weeks of the receipt of this order and a report submitted to the Commission immediately after the enquiry is over.
10. Matter shall be heard again on receipt of the head of the public authority's report.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2