Central Information Commission
Mr.Mahendra Pandey vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/SG/A/2011/001757/LS
Appellant : Shri Mahendra pandey
Public Authority : Delhi Pollution Control Committee, New Delhi.
Date of hearing : 20.01.2012
Date of Decision : 20 .01.2012
Facts :-
Vide RTI application dated 1.10.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"How much to be paid for copies of Form 1, Form 1A and Conceptual Plan of following projects :-
* Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh
* DDA Bakkarwala
* D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place
* Indira Paryavaran bhawan, Jorbagh
* Indian Systems of Medicines, Najafgarh
* Hotel Project, Asset No. 13, Hospitality District, DIAL
* How much to be paid for copies of Attendance Sheet of SEAC Meetings
on following dates :
* 20.3.2009
* 26.6.2009
* 27.1.2010
* 22.2.2010
* 29.9.2010"
2. This was responded to by SPIO through letter dated 22.2.2011. The operative portion of the letter is extracted below :-
"
1 How much to be paid for copies of Please pay an amount of Rs.952 for 476 Form 1, Form 1A and Conceptual pages @ Rs/.2 per page for obtaining Plan of following projects : information of the following projects :
*Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh *DDA Bakkarwala • DDA Bakkarwala *D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place • D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Place *Indira paryavaran Bhawan,Jorbagh • Indira paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh *Indian Systems of Medicines, • Hotel Project, Asset No.13, Najafgarh *Hotel Project, Asset No. 13, Hospitality District, DIAL Hospitality District, DIAL Further objection has been filed to provide the information for the projects max hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Indian Systems of Medicines, najafgarh by the concerned project proponent stating the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
Therefore, information of these projects are not being provided to you as per the provisions of section 8(1)(d).
2 How much to be paid for copies of Please pay an amount of Rs.62 for 31 pages Attendance Sheet of SEAC @ Rs.2 per page for obtaining information. Meetings on following dates :
• 20.3.2009 • 26.6.2009 • 27.1.2010 • 22.2.2010 • 29.9.2010 "
3. The first appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.5.2011.
4. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant had filed a complaint with this Commission which was disposed of by the Bench of Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner, vide order dated 27.4.2011 in Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000169 vide which the matter was remanded to First Appellate Authority for appropriate decision.
5. In compliance of the Commission's aforesaid decision, the first Appellate Authority had passed an order dated 27.5.2011, wherein he had made the following observations :-
"SPIO told that interim reply was sent on 11.2.2011 and complete reply was sent to the appellant on 22.02.2011. Against the interim reply the appellant has gone to the CIC for dealing his application under Section 11 of the act and have questioned whether asking for how much to pay for a particular papers means permission from third party besides new issue of Environmental clearance and proof of the reply of third party however he concealed the reply sent on 22.02.2011.
The intention is very clear once asked how much is to be paid because once it is replied and then going for the third party enquiry will be questionable. The other questions does not arise in view of the reply dated 22.02.2011. There was no delay in reply as claimed by the appellant."
6. Subsequently, the matter was agitated before this Commission again and the Bench of Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, adjourned the matter vide order dated August 26, 2011. Paras 04 & 05 of the order are reproduced below :-
"4. It is accordingly directed that the PIO should, on payment of the requisite fee, supply the information to the Appellant in respect of this third party (as also of the other parties who have already given their approval for disclosure of information except the Max Hospital, which has not yet been heard by the Commission). To carry out the above direction, the PIO, within 1 week of receipt of this order, shall first intimate to the Appellant the total amount to be paid by him towards photocopy charges of the documents, which the Appellant, if he wishes to receive the information, should deposit with the PIO within 1 week of receipt of such intimation from the PIO. In that case, the PIO, within 2 weeks of receipt of the payment from the Appellant, shall supply the information to him.
5. With regard to the remaining information, which pertains to the Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, the matter is posted for further hearing, which shall be held on 30.09.2011 at 1600 hrs. All the parties (i.e. the Appellant, the Max Hospital, the Respondents) are directed to ensure their presence on the said date."
7. From para 05 extracted above, it is clear that the matter was not finally decided by the Bench of Ms. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner. However, she wished to recuse herself and requested the Chief Information Commissioner to constitute a Full Bench pursuant to which the following Bench was constituted :-
*Shri M.L. Sharma, Information Commissioner; *Smt. Deepak Sandhu, Information Commissioner; and *Smt. Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner.
8. The Full Bench heard the matter on 20.01.2012. The appellant is not present but is represented by Advs. Shri Pyush Aggarwal and Shri Abhijeet Sinha. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee(DPCC) is represented by Shri B.L. Chawla, Superintending Environmental Engineer and Dr. Chetna, Scientist, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Max Hospital is represented by Shri Shailender Chaudhary, Senior Manager(Legal). The parties are heard and the records perused.
9. Shri Chawla submits that CPIO had issued notices to the third parties and some of them did not object to the disclosure of requested information and some others did not respond. However, the Max Hospital objected to the disclosure of requested information. In view of the above, the CPIO had agreed to disclose information regarding all entities mentioned in the RTI application but for Max Hospital and had intimated the amount payable by the appellant. Similarly, the CPIO had agreed to disclose information regarding para 02 of the RTI application and had indicated the amount payable by the appellant.
10. In view of the above, the only controversy before this Commission is whether or not information sought by the appellant regarding Max Hospital is disclosable. Shri Chowdhury appearing for Max Hospital has strongly contended that information regarding this Hospital can not be disclosed. He has filed a written representation dated 20.1.2012 wherein he has pleaded that the requested information is barred from disclosure under clauses (d) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Para 03 of his representation is extracted below :-
"3. Further we hereby request you not to disclose the information as per Section 8(d)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
As per Section 8(d) states that information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of Company. Further Section 8(j) states that information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the Company."
11. On the other hand, Adv. Pyush Aggarwal, appearing for the appellant, has fervently pleaded that objections raised by Max Hospital are of no consequence in as- much-as the information submitted by this Hospital to DPCC was not marked 'confidential' and that only 'confidential' information is barred from disclosure under this section. He has also pleaded that disclosure of requested information is in the larger public interest. According to him, Form-1, Form-1A and Conceptual Plan submitted by Max Hospital have a deep impact on the environment and the environmental concerns are global in nature in the present day and time and fall in public domain and, therefore, the doctrine of larger public interest comes into play. In short, his submission is that the appellant essentially has sought environment related information about the entities in question and, therefore, disclosure of this information is in larger public interest.
12. On the other hand, Shri Chaudhary appearing for Max Hospital submits that the documents submitted by the Max Hospital to DPCC contain variety of information, including the architectural plan of the building and the expenditure incurred in its construction and this information is personal in nature and is barred from disclosure under clauses (d) & (j) of section 8(1). He also submits that section 11(1) does not specify the stage at which the plea of confidentiality of a document can be taken. A document submitted to the public authority in confidence (DPCC in this case) is presumed to be 'confidential' and is required to be treated as such. We broadly accept this submission.
13. We have given a deep thought to the matter. We have also perused Form-1 and form-1A which were produced before us. These Forms do contain information which impacts environmental issues. However, the architectural plan submitted by Max Hospital does not directly concern environmental issues. Needless to say, environment is a global issue and environment related information falls in public domain. However, this cannot be said of information which relates to the architecture of the building or expenses incurred in its construction. In this view of the matter, we hold that all information relating to Max Hospital which relates to environment related issues is disclosable to the appellant but the rest of the information is not. In the premises, we remand the case to the CPIO with the direction to severe environment related information from other information submitted by Max Hospital under section 10(1) of the RTI Act and intimate the number of pages concerning the former to the appellant.
11. This order may be complied with in 04 weeks time.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- ( M.L. Sharma) ( Deepak Sandhu ) ( Sushma Singh ) Inf. Commr. Inf. Commr. Inf. Commr.
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.
( K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, Delhi Pollution Control Committee, Dept. of Environment, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 4th Floor, ISBT Bldg., Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
2. Shri Mahendra Pandey, Flat No. 18, C&D Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.