Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 October, 2024
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2023/129726
Rakesh Kumar Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Director(MIG)H,
Delhi Development Authority, 205, 2nd Floor,
D Block, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi- 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.10.2024
Date of Decision : 01.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 26.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 29.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
Please provide me the copy of the complete file (cover to cover) for my personal use.
File No. Mo 36(108)93/JM/NP The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.04.2023stating as under:
In this connection, it is stated that the information sought by you vide your RTI application is third party information and as per section 8(1)j of RTI Act 2005, no information can be provided to you.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.05.2023, held as under.
In this regard, it is to inform that the reply of your RTI appeal is same as PIO replied vide letter no. M/36(108)93/JM/NP/Pt./11 dated 26.04.2023. The copy of the RTI reply is enclosed for reference. Also, it is pertinent to mention that PIO has already supplied complete information that was available with this office and no further action is required from this office. Further, the information sought falls in the ambit of third party information and cannot be provided as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Kamakshi Kumari, Assistant Director (MIG)-H/PIO, DDA present in person.
Appellant while narrating the factual background of the matter pleaded that despite payment of entire consideration by his aunt (Late Smt. Amba Rani) for allotment of a MIG flat bearing No. 35-B, Pocket C, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi by DAA and stay order from the Civil Court to maintain status quo, the DDA has allotted the said flat to the third party. Challenging the said allotment, the appellant went to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing writ petition (W.P. (C) 2328/2020) where the DAA claimed that the file of this flat was not traceable and new file with File No. Mo 36(108)93/JM/NP was reconstructed. To get the Page 2 of 6 factual clarity, the appellant sought the relevant documents pertaining to that new file which was denied by the PIO under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
A written submission dated 20.09.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"....RTI application of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma was received in this office on 29.03.2023 and a reply was provided by the then PIO on 26.04.2023.
Also, the RTI Appeal of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma was received in this office which was duly replied by FAA/MIG-H vide Letter dt. 26.05.2023. Now, a notice of CIC hearing is received in this office. In this regard, it is informed that the main allotment File bearing No. 36(108)93/JM/NP is not traceable as per available record. However, the part file bearing No. 36(108)93/JM/NP/Pt. vide which the RTI replies were issued to the applicant has been retained by Hon'ble High Court vide Order dt. 09.05.24. (copy enclosed).
Furthermore, it is informed that the applicant had filed CM Application No. 31479/2023 along with other applications in Hon'ble High Court against DDA seeking directions to provide the cover to cover file bearing No. 36(108)93/JM/NP and the same has been dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide Order dt. 19.07.2024 along with other applications. (copy enclosed)."
During the course of hearing, respondent handed over a copy of her written submission to the appellant which is taken on record. The respondent while reiterating the contents of her written submission stated that after seeking legal opinion on this matter, reply has been given to the appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant should have obtained the requisite information from the court during pendency of his case. As on date, she claimed that file is not traceable, however, at the behest of the Commission, PIO volunteered to recheck the office record and intimate the factual position about availability/non-availability of information to the appellant, accordingly.
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding his locus standi, appellant stated that he is a probate owner of the property from the Civil Court, Page 3 of 6 however, no documents in support of his arguments were produced before the bench. Appellant further contented that on dismissal of his Writ petition the entire case records of public authorities are returned to them by the Court, therefore, the PIO must have the case file and denied it malafidely to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, agrees with the initial stand taken by PIO regarding denial of information as it relates to the personal information of a third-party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the Appellant has failed to establish larger public interest which would justify parting with such information. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(j) 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;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 decided on 13.11.2019 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Page 4 of 6 Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the above, the contentions raised by the Appellant during hearing that he is a probate owner declared by the court of law without any supportive evidence for the same is rendered inconsequential. Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.
However, the respondent is advised to fulfil her commitments made during the hearing in a timely manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar Page 5 of 6 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Dy. Director(MIG)H, Delhi Development Authority, 205, 2nd Floor, D Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi- 110023 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)