Central Information Commission
Mr. Abid Khan vs Office Of The Distt. Election ... on 26 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01508/SG/3872
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01508/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Abid Khan,
G3/ 57, Sunder Nagari,
Opp.St. Stephan Dispensary,
Delhi- 93
Respondent : Mr. R.K.Jain
PIO/SDM-Election
Office of the Distt. Election Officer/DC(NE),
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Deputy Commissioner's Office Complex,
Nand Nagri, Delhi,
RTI application filed on : 17.08.2008
PIO replied : 14.09.2007
First Appeal filed on : 11.10.2007
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 06.12.2007
Information sought:
The Appellant had requested for the marked voter list containing names and addresses of voters for the last Assembly election for all polling booths in Seema Puri constituency NO.45 Reply of PIO:
The PIO replied that requisite documents could not be supplied keeping in view Rule 93 and 94 of Conduct of Elections rules, 1961( Statutory Rules and Order), a copy of which was enclosed for ready reference.
Grounds for first appeal:
Requested information had not been supplied to the Appellant. He had to say that answer provided by PIO was wrong.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. CPIO not operational/ available
2. Information denied,
3. Information not given within stipulated time
4. Partial information received,
5. Unreasonable fee being demanded.
6. Refusal of mode of payment.
7. Misleading information given,
8. Aggrieved by decision of CPIO,
9. Aggrieved by decision of AA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. R.K.Jain, PIO The PIO has denied the information based on the Conduct of Election Rules - 1961 (Statutory rules and order) where in rule 93 it is stated, "the marked copy of the electoral role shall not be opened before any person of authority except under the order of the competent court." The PIO was told that the RTI Act supersedes all laws and rules made earlier and hence the ground of denial cannot be accepted. The Commission asked the PIO if he could give any ground for denial under Section 8(1). He stated that he felt Section 8(1)(b) offered exemption from disclosure. Section 8(1)(b) exempts "information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court". The information sought here has not been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal and hence cannot qualify for the exemption under Section 8(1)(b). In view of this the PIO's order is not upheld.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information to the appellant before 10 July 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 26 June 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (Rnj)