Central Information Commission
Mrsandeepkumar Advocate vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 30 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/901812/8217
30 July 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar
Advocate
Chamber No. 251, Lawyers Chamber,
New Court Campus, G. T. Road,
Panipat, Haryana
Respondent : CPIO & Dy. General Manager (CFA-1)
BSNL
O/o the General Manager Telecom
District: Karnal
Haryana
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2014
PIO replied on : 22/03/2014
First appeal filed on : 22/04/2014
First Appellate Authority order : 06/05/2014
Second Appeal dated : 11/07/2014
Information sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding Mobile Network Tower of BSNL installed in Vill. Nara, Tehsil - Madlauda, District - Panipat, Haryana:-
1. Provide the name and address of the landlord on whose land the captioned Tower has been installed.
2. In which year the captioned tower was installed in the village.
3. For installation of the said tower was any lease agreement made between the Landlord and BSNL. If any such lease agreement was made then provide the copy of the lease agreement.
4. Have any further Revision/Renewal been made in the said lease agreement since its execution to till date. If yes, then provide the copy of the documents related to any such Revision/Renewal.
5. Provide the copy of latest lease agreement made between the BSNL and Landlord.
6. Who have been appointed as Caretaker, Operator, Watchman for that tower. Provide the names of the people appointed and details of remuneration paid to them. If any of these tasks have been outsourced from any contractor/vendor than provide the name of the contractor and copy of agreement made between the BSNL and the said contractor/vendor.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sandip Kumar through VC Respondent: Mr. Ashok Trivedi appellant's representative through VC The appellant stated that he has not received the information sought in his RTI application dated 05/03/2014. The CPIO's representative stated that the information relates to third party and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as no public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify its disclosure. The appellant pleaded that as per the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) information which cannot be Page 1 of 2 denied to Parliament cannot be denied to him. He further pleaded that the information sought under para 2 & 6 relates to BSNL and not to any third party. The CPIO's representative stated that he will provide the year of installation of the tower and the name of the generator operator, the contractor through whom he has been engaged and his remuneration.
Decision notice:
As agreed by the CPIO's representative he should provide the year of installation of the tower and also the name of the generator operator, the contractor through whom he has been engaged and the remuneration paid to him, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The other information which relates to third party is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appellant has contended that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament cannot be denied to him. This issue has been elaborately clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 30/11/2009 in the matter of Union Of India Thr. Director vs Central Information Commission & ors. WP(C) no. 8396 of 2009 holding as under:
"43. A proviso can be enacted by the legislature to serve several purposes. In Sundaram Pillai versus Patte Birman (1985) 1 SCC 591 the scope and purpose of a proviso and an explanation has been examined in detail. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something in the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. A proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to qualify and set at naught, the object of the main enactment Sarthi on "Interpretation of Statutes", referred to in the said judgment, states that a proviso is subordinate to the main section and one of the principles which can be applied in a given case is that a proviso would not enlarge an enactment except for compelling reasons. It is unusual to import legislation from a proviso into the body of the statute. But in exceptional cases a proviso in itself may amount to a substantive provision. The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e., the question of balance between 'public interest in form of right to privacy' and 'public interest in access to information' is to be balanced."
In view of the foregoing information relating to third party cannot be disclosed being exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2