Central Information Commission
Mr. Ujjawal Shrivastava vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000558/18359
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000558
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ujjawal Shrivastava, Editor,
Rojana Sabki Khabar (Hindi Daily),
313A, Pratap Bhawan,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg (Press Area),
New Delhi-110002.
Respondent : Mr. R. Prasad
Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office Superintending Engineer 16 Rajpura Road, Civil Line Zone, Delhi-110054.
RTI application filed on : 21/10/2011
PIO replied : 01/12/2011
First appeal filed on : 03/01/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 24/01/2012
Second Appeal received on : 16/02/2012
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Certified list of work carried out by the Executive The information asked in the said form is
Engineer M-II Civil Lines Zone, during the period voluminous in nature, and therefore, inspection of
from 01/01/2011 till now and the payment record can be made on any working day with
made/bills passed indicating names of works during prior intimation, in writing, to this office and
the aforesaid duration of time, may kindly be required record can be obtained after payment of
supplied. Rs.2 per copy as per the RTI Act.
2. Inspection of related records and sites may kindly As above.
be allowed.
3. Certified samples of Material used in different As above.
works, which could reflect the quality of materials
used in different works, may kindly be supplied.
4. Details of the properties of engineers of M-II Third party matter.
Division, Civil Lines Zone.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The Appellate Authority observed "the information provided by the PIO has been looked into and I am of the view that the same is correct and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As the information requisitioned by the appellant is of nearly one year and the same is of voluminous in nature, so the Page 1 of 4 appellant is advised to inspect the available records in the PIO's office on any working day during office hours with prior intimation to the PIO's office within 15 days from the receipt of this order and obtain photocopies of the requisite information if he so desires as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rahul Sagar, EE(M-II) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;
The PIO has sent his reply on 01/12/2011 to the Appellant's RTI application of 21/10/2011. The reply has been sent after 30 days and yet the PIO was talking of a payment of additional fees. As per the provisions of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act the information is provided after 30 days it has to be provided free of cost. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to provide attested photocopies of all the work orders issued in 2011 by the Executive Engineer (M-II) Division, Civil Lines Zone free of cost.
As regards query-4 the assets declaration of the public servant has to be provided and cannot be considered as exempt. The PIO has refused to give this information claiming it is third party matter. SEction-11 of the RTI Act is not exemption.
Section 11 of the RTI act, which is the basis on which the information is sought to be denied to the appellant in the present case lays down:
'11. (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which. relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure out weighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.' It is clearly stated at Section 11 (1) that 'submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The Page 2 of 4 PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI act. In the instant case it appears the PIO has not even sought the views of the third party within 05 days of receipt of the RTI application and has wrongly claimed exemption.
The Commission has already decided in CIC/AT/A/2008/01262/SG/2109 dated 27/02/2009 that the assets of public servants would have to be disclosed when a citizen uses the Right to Information. The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
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. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
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.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. 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 such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in the instant case.
In view of this the PIO's and the third party's claim for exemption of this information are not allowed. PIOs are advised to ensure that such information is provided to the Appellant within 30 days of receiving the RTI Application.
Page 3 of 4Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query 1 & 4 to the Appellant before 05 May 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner.
12 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 4 of 4