Central Information Commission
Mr.Animesh Srivastava vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 17 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000213/8039Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000213
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint.
Complainant : Mr. Animesh Srivastava
14, Pocket D-15, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Respondent : Mr. H. P. Meena
Public Information Officer &
Asstt. Commissioner (New Delhi),
Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 10/08/2009
PIO replied : Not replied.
First appeal filed on : 14/12/2009
Complaint received on : 18/02/2010
Complaint notice sent on : 25/02/2010
Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought information regarding certified copies of attendance register and
reasons for unavailability of the same, certified copies of movement register from January 2005-
March 2009 and certified copies of details of assets declared by the employees of Food and
Supply Department, Circle-3 working from January 2006 to March, 2009.
Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO):
Not replied.
Ground for First Appeal:
No information received from the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information received from the PIO or the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
Submission received from the PIO, Food & Supply Office, Circle 40:
(After the complaint notice sent on 25/02/2010)
The Food & Supply Officer, Circle 40 and PIO vide letter dated 19/03/2010 intimated the
Commission that the reply to the RTI Application dated 10/08/2009 was sent to the Complainant
vide letter dated 17/03/2010.
The para-wise reply furnished was as follows:
Q1. The requisite information of Circle No.3 (old) is not traceable.
Page 1 of 5
Q2. The Circle No.3 (old) was bifurcated into three circles and the record was shifted
accordingly. Hence it is not traceable
Q3. As above.
Q4. Confidential.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on June 7, 2010:
The following were present
Complainant: Mr. Vikas Gaur on behalf of Mr. Animesh Srivastava;
Respondent: Mr. H. P. Meena, Public Information Officer & Asstt. Commissioner (New Delhi);
"The PIO has stated that the copy of the attendance register for the month of January
2006 and the movement registers of employees for the period January 2005 to March 2009 is
"not traceable". These registers may have been stolen/lost. The PIO is directed to file a police
complaint about the theft/loss of the said registers giving the names of the officers who last
handled these registers. As far as query-4 is concerned assets of employees have been refused
giving exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed
under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed
since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In
common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an
individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be
related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. ( Hence we could state that Section 8 (1)
(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that
the information must have some relationship to a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information
from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives
information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence
or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the
appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of
an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade
on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with
certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information
from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion
on privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant,
-which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public
servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will
Page 2 of 5
only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by
a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-
tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme
Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have
to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their
property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must
be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in
the instant case.
Hence this information will have to be disclosed for all the employees of FSO (C-3) Minto Road
who worked from January 2006 to March 2009.
The RTI Application has been filed on 29/07/2009 whereas the first reply was provided only on
19/04/2010 after the notice of the Commission which was sent on 25/02/2010. The PIO states
that the deemed PIO then was Mr. A. K. Verma, FSO (C-40). The PIO states that the RTI
application was sent to him on 02/09/2009 and a Memo was given to him on 24/09/2009 asking
him to provide the information. The Respondent states that Mr. A. K. Verma had retired in
January 2010."
Decision dated June 7, 2010:
The Complain was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to file a police complaint as directed above and send a
copy of the complaint to the Complainant before 10 July 2010.
He is also directed to provide the copies details of assets to the Complainant before
25 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO then Mr. A. K. Verma, FSO (C-40) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions
attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he
is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied
on him.
Deemed PIO then Mr. A. K. Verma, FSO (C-40)will present himself before the Commission at
the above address on 06 July 2010 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause
why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also
submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct
them to appear before the Commission with him."
CC: To,
deemed PIO then Mr. A. K. Verma, FSO (C-40) through Mr. H. P. Meena,PIO & AC;
Page 3 of 5
Facts leading to hearing held on August 16, 2010:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC, Food & Supplies Department, GNCTD.
Further to the Commission's order dated 07/06/2010, the Commission received a letter dated 12/07/2010 from the Complainant wherein he alleged that the information provided to him was not in compliance with the said order. From a perusal of the papers, the Commission noted that the police complaint was filed in respect of the theft/ loss of the attendance register for the month of January 2005 instead of January 2006. Incomplete information pertaining to the details of the assets of all the employees of the FSO (C-3) was provided and the Complainant was further informed that the Services Department, GNCTD was asked to provide the remaining information.
By the Commission's letter dated 15/07/2010, the PIO was directed to file a police complaint in respect of the theft/ loss of the attendance register for the month of January 2006 and send a copy of the same to the Complainant before 05/08/2010. The PIO was also directed to ensure that details of the assets of all the employees of FSO (C-3) which were to be received from the Services Department, GNCTD were provided to the Complainant before 05/08/2010. Further, the PIO was asked to appear before the Commission on 16/08/2010.
At the hearing held on 16/08/2010, the PIO stated that a revised police complaint in respect of the theft/ loss of the attendance register for the month of January 2006 was lodged with the police station, Kamla Market vide letters dated 27/07/2010 and 02/08/2010. A copy of the same was sent to the Complainant on 04/08/2010.
Further, the PIO had sought information from the Services Department, GNCTD on Annual Property Return of certain Group B officials (Mr. Chander Shekhar, FSO, Mr. Navin Gosain, FSO and Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, FSO) on 24/06/2010, in respect of whom information was not available with the Administration Department. However, the Special Secretary (Services) vide letter dated 09/07/2010 informed the PIO that the Annual Property Returns of Grade- I (DASS) officials are not maintained in the Services Department. Thereafter, the PIO once again wrote a letter to the AC (Admin.) on 30/07/2010 with a request to recheck his records and if available, property details of the remaining period of Group B and other officials be sent to the PIO. Vide letter dated 02/08/2010, the AC (Admin.) informed that the Annual Property Returns in respect of the said officials mentioned in the PIO's letter were not available. The PIO also submitted that in respect of officials working as non- gazetted officials in the erstwhile Circle No. 3, Annual Property Returns are not maintained as per the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The Commission is satisfied with the submissions made by the PIO. However, if information pertaining to details of assets of certain Group B officials (Mr. Chander Shekhar, FSO, Mr. Navin Gosain, FSO and Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, FSO) working in the Food & Supply Department, Circle No. 3 from January 2006 to March 2009 is not available either with the Administration Department or with the Services Department, then the same is required to be certified by the PIO.
Adjunct Decision announced on August 17, 2010:
Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC is directed to certify that information pertaining to details of assets of certain Group B officials (i.e. Mr. Chander Shekhar, FSO, Mr. Navin Gosain, FSO and Mr. Jitender Kumar Singh, FSO) working in the Food & Supply Department, Circle No. 3 from Page 4 of 5 January 2006 to March 2009 is not available with the public authority. A copy of the said certificate is required to be sent to the Commission before September 7, 2010.
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 August 17, 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC) Page 5 of 5