Central Information Commission
Ms. Mamta Sehgal vs Delhi Jal Board on 9 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001329/4035
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001329
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Mamta Sehgal
H. No. D-36, (49), Gali No. 1,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. P. K. Dhamija
Joint Director (Revenue) & PIO Delhi Jal Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi E-Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2009
PIO replied : 24/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 04/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal filed on : 25/05/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Was there any electricity meter There was no one in DJB office, Shanti
reader by the name of Tekram in Mohalla by name of Tekram. One Tekram
Shanti Mohalla. is working on the post of meter inspector.
2. If yes then give the details of his He is working since 02/08/2006.
joining date.
3. How many complaints have been There was no such complaint against him registered against him? Give the on which a departmental action had been certified document. taken.
4. Which region did Tekram take Some part of Seelampur and Ghonda LA care of? Constituency and Karawal Nagar LA Constituency.
5. Did D-Block, Bhajanpura come No. under his region?
6. Had the DJB given any order to Clause No. 20(1), Delhi Water Board Act inspect the Appellant's premises 1998. Copy has been provided. on 16/02/2009?
7. How had the new connection been The new connection has been approved in given on D-36 (49) in the name of April 2007 and at that time there were no Mr. Daljeet Kumar Sehgal when a pending bill against the said property's bill of Rs.14000/- pending was water connection no. 9117. The Pending already pending? Is it legal? bill amount of Rs.14000/- is of after April 2007. Because the said connection was converted into Non-domestic category after 26/07/2007. And this due amount is of till 9/01/2009.
8. Give the copy of the documents on As the case was related to third party so a which basis the new connection letter was sent to them on 18/08/2009 for had been given? However one case their consent. But the third party denied related to the same matter is under giving any document to others on consideration in Patiala House 21/03/2009.
Court.
9. If the new connection is invalid The approved water connection is valid.
then by when will it be disconnected?
10. On the Appellant's old bill Regional Revenue Officer, Seelampur 'misuse' had been inscribed while Office could be contacted to remove there was no water connection in commercial category from water his parlour. How can it be connection. A request letter can also be rectified? Give the name and other submitted on any working day from 10 am relevant details of the concerned to 5 pm. officer.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant was not satisfied with the answer of query no. 6, 7 and 8.
Order of the First Appellate Authority Not mentioned.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Ms. Mamta Sehgal Respondent: Mr. P. K. Dhamija the then PIO The PIO has not given the answer to query 8 on the ground that the application and details provided for getting a new connection of another persons is third party information and is covered under Section 8(1)(j). The application for a new connection for water made to public authority is clearly a public activity. A person submits an application and attached papers in fulfillment of his statutory duty to get water connection.
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. 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.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly in all Countries uniformly. However, the concept of 'privacy' is related to the society and different societies' would look at these differently. India has not codified this right so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage.
Therefore we can accept that disclosure of information which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by individuals, would not be an invasion on the privacy of an individual and there will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers as when a raid is conducted or a telephone tapped. Thus the application for a water connection and papers attached with this are not covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information will be provided to the appellant by the PIO before 20 July 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. If information is not provided in the time stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, it has to be provided free of cost to the Appellant Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 9 July 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (GJ)