Central Information Commission
Mr.Prabhu Dayal vs Delhi Police on 28 August, 2012
CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION
B Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000640
Dated 28.08.2012
Name of Appellant : Prabhu
Dayal, Delhi
(The appellant was present)
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police,
East District [Represented by Priyamitra Kuashik(A.C.P) and Sushil Kumar(Inspector)] Date of hearing :
28.8.2012 O RDER The Commission has received second appeal dated 13.12.2011 from Mr. Prabhu Dayal, under the RTI Act 2005, against the Delhi Police relating to his RTI application dated 24.6.2011. the appellant had filed the application seeking copies of House binding advance (HBA) file Note sheet, sanction order of HBA in respect of Ct. Virender Singh No. 253/T(Now ASI No. 5034/D). He also had sought copies of all the documents given by Ct. Virender Singh in the year 198891 for taking house building advance of Rs, 50000. He also sought the copies of relevant certificates for release of instalments of HBA to the above Constable The PIO/PHQ Replied vide dated 1.7.2011 under which they stated that the requisite information i.e. copy of the sanction order of HBA issued dated 20.5.1990 and copy of Note Sheet Para 1 to 12 were available in their office and the appellant could collect the same from the Hqrs. After depositing Rs. 6/ as stationary charges as prescribed under the RTI Act 2005 by way of cash, bank draft, banker's cheque. With reference to Point No. 2 & 3 of the RTI application where in the appellant had requested for copies of all documents given by the appellant, including his application for HBA and copies of relevant certificates for release of instalments, the PIO held that the requisite documents cannot be provided as it attracts 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information. However the PIO had issued a third party notice u/s 11 of the RTI Act to Ct.
Virender Singh for obtaining his consent on whether the required information could be provided or not In response to the 3rd party Notice sent by PIO/PHQ, ASI Virender Singh vide letter dated 11.8.2011 has informed that information from his HBA should not be provided to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 20.9.2011 held that PIO/PHQ had already provided a reply as well as available copies of the sanctioned order and copy of note vide which the HBA amount was sanctioned to Ct. Virender Singh in the interests of transparency in the department. ASI Virender Singh i.e. Third Party had not given consent to provide the documents from his HBA file so no further relief was to be given to the appellant.
Having heard the submissions from both the sides, the Commission is of the view that the requisite information permitted under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. Information with reference to Point No 2 & 3 cannot be provided being personal Third Party information. The PIO/PHQ had issued a notice to the Third Party for its consent to provide information but the consent was not given by Ct. Virender Singh therefore this information was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of the information. The Commission, therefore, finds no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent.
The appeal is disposed of with above observations.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Name and Address of the Parties:
1. Mr Prabhu Dayal, Delhi C/72, NPL, GTB Nagar, Delhi, 110009
2. The C.P.I.O Delhi Police Headquarters, MSO Building, 8th Floor, IP Estate New Delhi
3. The F.A.A., Delhi Police Headquarters, MSO Building, 8th Floor, IP Estate New Delhi