Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Brij Mohan Kohali vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 1 June, 2012

                   Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
           Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

          Appeal/Complaint : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003691 AND 
                     CIC/DS/C/2012/000698  

Appellant /Complainant        :     Shri Brij Mohan Kohli, 
Chandigarh      
Public Authority              :      Chandigarh Administration, UT 
Chandigarh
                              (Sh. Keshav Chander, Supdt./CPIO & 
Sh. Surjit Singh
                              Law Officer & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Sr. 
Asstt.) 

Date of Hearing               :     01 June   2012 
Date of Decision              :     01 June   2012
  
Facts:­ 

1. Appellant   submitted  RTI   application   dated   23   June   2011  before the CPIO, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh seeking  the   complete   documents     in   file   no.   CRL3483   SC   No.   146­147  pertaining   to   property   at   SCO   Site   No.   146,   Sector24­D,  Chandigarh.

2. Vide CPIO's Order dated 19 August 2011, CPIO refused to  furnish information as the owners of the property denied their  consent for  disclosure of information under section11 of the  Act. .

3. Not satisfied with the reply, Appellant preferred appeal  dated 2 September 2011, before the First Appellate Authority.

4. Vide FAA Order dated 20 September 2011, FAA overruled the  CPIO's   Order   and   allowed   the   Appellant   to   seek   complete  documents regarding files no. CRL3483 SC No. 146­147.

5. Being   aggrieved   and   not   being   satisfied   by   the   above  response of the public authority, the  third party namely Shri  Brij Mohan Kohli  preferred  complaint before the Commission.

6. Matter   was   heard   today.    Sh.   Brij   Mohan   Kohli   appeared  along   with   respondents   in   person.     Sh.   Kohli   is   the   third  party   in   this   matter   and   has   preferred   complaint   before   the  Commission   to   challenge  the  order   of   the   FAA   vide   which  the     Appeal/Complaint : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003691 AND  CIC/DS/C/2012/000698        order of the CPIO directing non­disclosure of the information  pertaining   to   the   third   party,   to   the   appellant   has   been  overruled.  

Decision notice

7. On   perusing   the   documents   on   record,   Commission   notes  that the FAA has not provided any reasons for overruling the  order of the CPIO and for directing disclosure of the personal  information   to   the   RTI   applicant   namely   Sh.   Karamjit   Singh.  FAA   has   also   not   recorded   any   larger   public   interest   while  arriving   at   this   conclusion   and   overruling   respect   of   the  submissions   of   the   third   party   namely   Sh.   Brij   Mohan   Kohli  vide   which   Sh.   Kohli   clearly   objected   to   the   disclosure   of  information   relating   to   himself.     Undoubtedly   the   FAA   has  erred   grievously   and   appears   to   have   pronounced   his   orders  without   due   application   of   mind   and   without   keeping   in   mind  the relevant provisions under the RTI Act.   Be it noted that  even   within   the   transparency   Act   the   right   to   privacy   and  personal   information   have   been   placed   on   a   separate   footing  and   are   protected   under   the   provisions   of   Section   8(1)(j)Section   10,   Section   11   and   Section   19(4)   of   the   Act.     The  Commission, therefore, closes this case by upholding the order  of CPIO and admitting the plea of the third party namely Sh.  Brij Mohan Kohli for non disclosure of information pertaining  to him as there is no larger interest in disclosure put forth  by the information seeker.

8. It is to be noted that his case has been registered as an  appeal   when   infact   it   is   being   heard   under   Section   18   as  complaint   preferred   by   third   party.     Therefore,   even   though  notice   was   issued   in   this   case   bearing   No.  CIC/DS/A/2011/003691,   the   Commission   order   in   this   matter  bears No . CIC/DS/C/2012/000698.  

   

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­    Appeal/Complaint : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003691 AND  CIC/DS/C/2012/000698       
1. Shri Brij Mohan Kohli  S/o Lae Shri Roshan Lal Kohli House No. 2101, Sector­38­C Chandigarh.
2. The CPIO Deputy Estate Officer Estate Office, UT Chandigarh
3. The Appellate Authority Estate Officer Estate Office, UT Chandigarh        Appeal/Complaint : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003691 AND  CIC/DS/C/2012/000698