Central Information Commission
Shri Anil Sood vs Dy. Commissioner (East), Delhi on 22 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/00901 & 902 both dated 21.8.2007 and
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00057 dated 8.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 & 19
Appellant - Shri Anil Sood
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner (East), Delhi
Facts:
These are two appeals and one complaint from Shri Anil Sood of Pitampura, Delhi against the Dy. Commissioner (East):
1. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00901 In this case appellant Shri Sood made an application to ADM (East) on 8.2.07, assigned ID No. 244, seeking the following information:
"I. Power of Attorney dated 25.8.2006.
II. Special power of Attorney dated 25.8.2006.
III. Will dated 25.8.2006.
IV. Agreement to sell, Registration No. 10228, Book 1, Vol No.
2524 pages 151-162 along with 2 identification letters dated 25.8.2006 in respect to flat no C120, Kirpal Apartment, 44, I. P. Extn., Delhi-92.
Further I had asked how the documents got registered.
a) No date is available on which the Identification letter is signed.
b) In case of Ms. Shivani her signature are attested but her signature were not on the letter.
c) Whether any advocate can sign the Identification letter.
d) Where is the Identification of the Advocate, who had signed the identification letters?"
To this he received response on 23.2.07, as follows:
"2. The information asked for and as furnished by SR-VIII is as under:-
The copy of Agreement to sell as requested by you shall be provided to you on payment of further fees for the photo copy of 1 the copies. Letter for further fees to be paid by you is enclosed.
However, the copies of instrument (GPA, SPA and will dated 25.8.2006) cannot be given to you because of provision of Sec-57 of the Indian Registration Act which states that copies of entries in Book No. 3 and 4 and the Index relating thereto shall be given to the person executing the documents to which such entries relate, or to their agents.
The documents are registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act and as per Sec 32 (3) (b), it is the duty of the Registering Officer to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in the instant case it appears that the then registering officer is satisfied about the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and accordingly the document is fully registered.
As regard stay order given by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.5.2006, it is informed that this office has not received any direction to maintain status quo about the property No. 120, Kirpal Apartments, I. P. Extension, Delhi from the Hon'ble Court, as per the office records.
3. You are also informed that if you wish to inspect the documents/ records, you may do so in the Office of DC (East) on any working day after seeking time for the same.
For inspection no fee will be charged for the first hour but thereafter, Rs. 5/- will be charged for each 15 minutes.
4. If you wish to obtain copy of records permissible under the Act, you may indicate the same after inspection and the same will be provided to you on payment of Rs. 2/- per page.' Finding this response incomplete Shri Sood moved a first appeal before the D.C. (East) on 6.3.07 upon which Ms. Rashmi Krishnan, DC (East) in a deliberated speaking order of 1.5.07 held as follows:
"In view of this omission in the application and the corresponding omission by the PIO to send notice to the third party there are two options available at this stage. One is to treat the application as incomplete and dismiss the same along with the present appeal. The other is to remand the matter on account of the omission at this stage. In view of the basic intent of the Right to Information Act 2005, this appeal is hereby decided with the matter being remanded to the PIO who shall obtain from the applicant/ appellant 2 the information that was required to be submitted in column 3 and thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. The matter of cancellation of the document is out side the purview of proceedings under the Right to Information Act and would have to be moved/ applied separately.' Appellant's prayer in the second appeal before us is as follows:
"It is requested that the inspection and required attested documents should be provided and reply to the queries should be given. Further action should be taken against the defaulting officers (ADM (East)), who did not provide the information and tried to mislead the Appellate Authority in respect of two identification letters. Appropriate actions should be taken against CPIO who called me for number of times to collect the order and documents but none of them was given when approached. CPIO also give the orders on my second appeal dated 3.5.2007 and despite the verbal assurance by CPIO that the orders has been passed against my second appeal, none was received by the applicant. Action should be taken against the CPIO for not providing the information mandatory under section 7 8) (ii) and (iii) regarding Appellate Authority and time for appeal which is mandatory under RTI Act, 2005 and not disposing my two appeals within 30 days as per section 7 (1) of the Act."
Subsequently in an appeal for early hearing dated 2.1.08 Shri Anil Sood had submitted as follows:
"That appeal No. 901 is against the order of SPIO, who refused to give the documents under provision on section 57 of the registration Act. The application was moved under ID No. 244 on 8.2.2007. More than 3 appeals were raised with two different Appellate Authority i.e. Dy. Commissioner (East) and verbal assurance was given by both of them but still not full information was provided. These documents were registered on 25.8.2006 in defiance of the Delhi High Court Order dated 29.5.2006 and now CPIO is shielding their corrupt officers of the sub-registrar office. More over on Delhi Government RTI Website, they had uploaded as full information is provided. (Copy already with appeal)."
2. FILE NOS. CIC/WB/A/2007/00902 & CIC/WB/C/2008/00057 In both the above cases requests were made on 10.4.07 and 6.12.07 together with the necessary fees. No responses were received in either case. In 3 the application of 10.4.07 a first appeal was moved on 15.5.07 but received no response. In the case in File No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00057, on the other hand, Shri Anil Sood moved his first appeal on 8.1.08 and moved his complaint before us on again getting no response with the following prayer:
1. "It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may initiate action under section 20 of the RTI Act against SPIO for not providing the reply/ information asked for under the RTI Act.
2. It is further requested that the Hon'ble Commission may order the SPIO to provide the information asked for including inspection of the file."
The appeals/complaint was heard on 27.6.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Anil Sood.
Respondents Shri Amar Singh, PIO/ADM (E).
Shri A. K. Kaushal, ADM (NE).
Shri A. V. Prem Nath, ADM (ND) (On behalf of DC, New Delhi).
Appellant Shri Sunil Sood submitted that he has not received answers to the questions on how the documents had been registered. He was asked by us to clarify as to what is the information that he has sought in this matter other than pointing out the shortcomings in the documents so registered. He stated that his question is as to how the documents were found fit for registration with the shortcomings noted by him, and in what manner such a faulty registration could be cancelled. Upon this, Shri A. K. Kaushal, ADM (NE) pointed out that appellant Shri Anil Sood will have to approach the Civil Court for cancellation since it is beyond the jurisdiction of the DC's Office. He further submitted that u/s 57 of the Indian Registration Act, copy of the following documents could not be provided to appellant:
i) Power of Attorney
ii) Special Power of Attorney
iii) Will
4
Besides, he submitted a copy of an order passed by him subsequent to the orders of the First Appellate Authority and after having been given the third party opportunity to be heard in which the third party had objected to disclosure of the information sought by appellant Shri Anil Sood, wherein Shri A. K. Kaushal had held that the information being third party and in light of this objection, was excluded from disclosure u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act.
DECISION NOTICE
1. FILE NOS. CIC/WB/A/2007/00902 & CIC/WB/C/2008/00057 The Commission hereby directs the PIO, A.D.M. (New Delhi)1, GNCTD, Delhi to provide the information sought to applicant Shri Anil Sood within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision. The then PIO Shri A.K. Kaushal, now A.D.M. (NE) is directed to appear personally before the Commission on 31.7.2008 at 4.00 p.m. and show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date when the information became due to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs.25, 000/- should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO may in the alternative submit his/her written submission on or before 31.7.2008."
2. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00901 In this case all discloseable information has infact been given except copies of Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney and Will. The basic issue before us is whether a will of a private person can be deemed to be a public document meriting disclosure under RTI Act, or whether such disclosure will fall squarely within the definition of private information and disclosure of which would then constitute invasion of privacy excluded from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j). Since in India, we have no law for protection of privacy as per our orders in similar cases taking guidance from the U.K. Data Protection Act 1998, and U.S. Law of Torts on Privacy we have directed as follows:1
Corrected from 'PIO, A.D.M. (EAST),' by corrigendum of 31.7.'08 5 "We have no clear definition of what is meant by 'invasion of privacy" with the RTI Act. We have no equivalent of UK's Data Protection Act, 1998, Sec.2 of which, titled Sensitive Personal Data, reads as follows:
In this Act 'sensitive personal data' means personal data consisting of information as to:
a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject.
b) His political opinions
c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature
d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union.
e) His physical or mental health or condition.
f) His sexual life.
g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any
offence.
h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to
have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings."
U.S. LAW OF TORTS.
The US Restatement of the Law, Second Torts, 652 defines the Intrusion of Privacy in the following manner:-
"One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another of his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
In this matter although indeed the information sought is of third party, the information was not held in confidence by the Department but was in fact a public document for presentation in Court. Recourse to sec. 11(1) was not, therefore, necessary. At any rate, we have studied sec. 57 of the Registration Act which reads as follows:-
"57. Registering officers to allow inspection of certain books and indexes, and to give certified copies of entries.
(1) Subject to the previous payment of the fees payable in that behalf, the Book Nos. 1 and 2 and the Indexes relating to Book No. 1 shall be at all times open to inspection by any person applying to inspect the same; and, subject to the provisions of section 62, copies of entries in such books shall be given to all persons applying for such copies.6
(2) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No.
3 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to the persons executing the documents to which such entries relate, or to their agents and after the death of the executants (but not before) to any person applying for such copies.
(3) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No. 4 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to any person executing or claiming under the documents to which such entries respectively refer, or to his agent or representative.
(4) The requisite search under the section for entries in Book Nos. 3 and 4 shall be made only by the registering officer. (5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents.
(B) As to the procedure on admitting to registration."
Further section 51 defines registers books to be kept in several offices as follows:-
"(1) The following books shall be kept in the several offices hereinafter named, namely:-
(A) In all registration offices:-
Book 1, "Register of non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property".
Book 2, "Record of reasons for refusal to register".
Book 3, "Register of wills and authorities to adopt", and
Book 4, "Miscellaneous Register",
(B) In the offices of Registrar's-
Book 5, "Register of deposits of wills".
(2) In Book 1 shall be entered or filed all documents or
memoranda registered under sections 17, 18 and 89 which relate to immovable property, and are not wills.
(3) In Book 4 shall be entered all documents registered under clauses (d) and (f) of section 18 which do not relate to immovable property.7
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require more than one set of books where the office of the Registrar has been amalgamated with the office of a Sub-Registrar."
In accordance with this it will be seen that the register of wills and authorities to adopt, is an entry in Book 3 of which copies can be given only to the persons executing the documents to which such entries relate or to the agents and only after the death of the executants to any person applying for such copies. However Power of attorney does not fall under Book 3. The executant of the will in this case appears to be Ms Shivani. If she is still living, it is only she or anyone authorised by her who may access the will. If not, the will, already sought to be taken recourse to in Court becomes a public document. We therefore direct that copies of Power of Attorney sought by appellant Shri Sood be provided to him within ten working days of the date of receipt of this order. Further, PIO will determine whether executants of the Will still survive. If they do, disclosure will be exempt as per requirement of Sec 57 of the Registration Act. In the alternative a copy of this document will also be provided to appellant Shri Sood within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this order. However as rightly held by 1st appellate authority Ms Krishnan, "The matter of cancellation of the document is out side the purview of proceedings under the Right to Information Act and would have to be moved/ applied separately."
The appeals/complaint is therefore partly allowed. Reserved in the hearing this decision is announced in open chamber on 22.7.'08 Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22.7.2008 8 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 22.7.2008 9