Central Information Commission
Mr.Prem Das Dahiya vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003362/10887Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003362
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Prem Das Dahiya
Village and Post Office: Nahara
District: Sonepat
Haryana 131103
Respondent : Mr. R. P. Sharma
PIO & D.M.S. (Admn.)
Office of the Medical Superintendent
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital
Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064
RTI application filed on : 12/03/2010
PIO replied : 05/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 19/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/11/2010
Information Sought:
1. Whether Dr. Dayashish Chakma (registered with the Assam Medical Council; Registration no.
14607; Date of registration: 15 June 1999) was employed at any time as a doctor/medical officer at
the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, or at any of its extension centres.
2. If yes, what were his starting and ending dates of employment at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital (or any of its extension centres)?
3. If yes, copies of all supporting documentation submitted by Dr. Dayashish Chakma along with his
application for employment at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (or any of its extension
centres), including the following
a) Copy of birth certificate
b) Copy of his Declaration of Nationality
c) Copy of his Scheduled Tribe Certificate
d) Copy of police verification report done prior to his employment
Reply of the PIO:
Third party is involved. As his consent was not received and hence information cannot be given.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed due to time limit.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory order by the FAA.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 11/01/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Trideep Pais representing Mr. Prem Das Dahiya;
Respondent : Mr. R. P. Sharma, PIO & D.M.S. (Admn.);
"The PIO has denied the information stating that he asked the third party who has stated that the
information should not be given to the Appellant. Section-11(1) of the RTI Act states, "
"Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act,
which. relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third
party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the
request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party
to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and
such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of
information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be
allowed if the public interest in disclosure out weighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the
interests of such third party."
Thus is obvious that Section-11 lays down a procedure to be followed when information relating to a third
party,- which has been treated as confidential by the third party,- is sought by an Appellant. This is a
procedure that follows the principal of natural justice and gives an opportunity to the third party to make
his submissions explaining why the information sought should not be revealed. If the third party objects to
releasing the information the PIO is expected to keep such submission of the third party in view while
taking a decision about disclosure of information. Since Right to Information is a fundamental right to
citizens and this Act overrides all earlier statues refusal of information can only be based on the
provisions of the act in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Hence a PIO can refuse to give information only if
one of the exemptions of Section 8(1) cover the information which is sought.
In the instant case no exemption of Section 8(1) has been claimed and the information is not of a nature
which would attract the exemption clauses of Section 8(1)."
Decision dated 11/01/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant before 25 January 2011."
Facts leading to the hearing on 10/06/2011:
The Commission received a letter dated 15/04/2011 from the Appellant alleging that the order of the Commission has not been complied with. On perusal of the papers, the Commission decided to schedule a hearing on June 10, 2011 at 11:00 am to decide whether there has been non-compliance of the order of the Commission. The Commission issued a notice on 18/05/2011 to both the parties to appear before the Commission on 10/06/2011.
Relevant facts emerging during the noncompliance hearing on 10/06/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Ashwagh Sitaraman(Adv) representing the Appellant;
Respondent: Mr. R.P. Sharma, PIO & DMS(Admn.) and Mr. Kapil, Superintendent;
The PIO Mr. R.P. Sharma has submitted that after the Commission's order dated 11/01/2011, the Appellant was informed vide a letter dated 24/01/2011 that "The requisite information is not readily traceable as the designation as well as the period of posting is required to trace the information. The posts of SR's/JR's and DNB's are tenure posts for 1 to 3 years, in some cases doctors serve for a very short time and leave the hospital. It is therefore, requested that you may provide the designation/year of Page 2 of 3 posting of Dr. Daybashish Chakma in this hospital in order to facilitate this hospital to provide desire information. You may contact this Office for inspection of record of the Doctors any working day and the information can be provided to you Rs. 2/- per page." However, the Appellant has himself sought this information in Query no. 2 i.e. "what were the starting and ending dates of employment of Dr. Daybashish Chakma at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (or any of its extension centers)"
The respondent explained that they have about 700 to 800 doctors at any given time including interns. In view of this and the fact that records were no computerized before 2007 it is an impossible task to locate Dr. Chakma's records. The Commission pointed out to the PIO that he had earlier stated that Dr. Chakma has refused to give the information. The Commission therefore stated that the PIO knew about the whereabouts of Dr. Chakma. It is pointed out by the PIO that the address of the Dr. Dayashish Chakma, S/o Shri Ranjan Bikash Chakma, Medical Officer in-charge of Primitive Group, Programme Office, Government of Tripura, Quarter no. type-II, SDM Office Complex, P.S. Longtarai Valley, District Dhalai, Tripura was supplied by the Appellant. The PIO has no knowledge whether Dr. Chakma worked with the Hospital and if so when. After a discussion with the appellant and the respondent it has been agreed that the following process to be followed to try and locate the information required by the Appellant:
1- The PIO will check the records on the computers to see if Dr. Chakma has worked with the Hospital after 2007. If that is the case he will provide the information to the Appellant before 20 June 2011.
2- The Appellant will in the mean time try and see if he can find out whether Dr. Chakma worked as SR/JR.
3- The PIO will also write to Dr. Chakma asking him about the period during which he worked in the Hospital.
4- If information on the tenure of Dr. Chakma has not been obtained by any of these methods the PIO will inform the Appellant by 20 June 2011 and facilitate an inspection of the records of doctors available in hard copies by the Appellant or his representative.
The Commission decides that there was no willful noncompliance of the Commission's order.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO will follow the directions above to give infroamtion to the Appellant.
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.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 10 June 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST) Page 3 of 3