Central Information Commission
Som Prakash Rehil vs Gnctd on 14 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/001734
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2017
Date of Decision : 12.06.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Som Prakash Rehil
Through:
Shri Manan Batra, Advocate with
appellant in person
Respondent : CPIO, Public Works Department
GNCTD
Through:
None
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.01.2016
PIO replied on : 11.02.2016
First Appeal filed on : 10.03.2016
First Appellate Order on : 07.04.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 26.04.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 05.01.2016 addressed to the Executive Engineer, PWD, the appellant sought information w.r.t one Mr. Meghraj Chhetry, Assistant Engineer (P) PWD Planning Division No. M-113(N). He sought details of immoveable property, shares, debentures and cash including bank deposits & ornaments etc. Further, he sought whether Mr. Meghraj had disclosed if his wife owns separate accommodation in Delhi and qualification details of Mr. Meghraj Chhetry.
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.02.2016 furnished the information on except point no. 01 wherein he held the information to be personal and denied disclosure since it was devoid of any element of public interest. On denial of information, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 07.04.2016 upheld the reply of CPIO and denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for want of larger public interest. Feeling aggrieved over denial of the information, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant is present and heard. The respondent is absent despite notice. The appellant states that information furnished was unsatisfactory and vague. He states that denial of information citing clause (j) is unjust and the details of property returns filed by public servants cannot be categorized as personal information. He states that though partial information regarding the disclosure of the immovable and movable assets owned by Mr. Meghraj and his family is already published over the website of the department. He further asserts that the aforesaid information in not complete. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for appellant that movable assets (including gold, silver, precious gems, shares, debentures etc. held by the family of officer is not placed in public domain. Upon a query from the Commission regarding any such law or executive instruction which mandates a public servant to furnish details of movable property held by his/her family members; the counsel could not point out any such provision.
Decision:
After hearing the appellant and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the stand taken by PIO to be logically inconsistent. While details of property returns of the officer concerned was already placed in public domain, invocation of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) was grossly misplaced. The Commission accessed the web portal of CPWD to cross verify the information furnished. Requisite information reflecting profile of officer is placed at http://cpwd.gov.in/HumanResource/pims/officersServiceParticulars.aspx?I D=MSC05011960JECI121983. Relevant property returns from year 2010 to 2016 are also accessible. The information already placed in public domain is found sufficient. In view of Section 44 of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the information placed in public domain is found adequate.
Section 44 - Declaration of assets: On and from the date of commencement of this Act, every public servant shall make a declaration of his assets and liabilities in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
The aforesaid provision does not require a government employee to declare asset details of spouse and other family members. As a sequel to foregoing, the Commission finds that information on all points except point no. 1 to be furnished adequately. On point no. 1, the exemption under clause (j) Section 8(1) of RTI Act invoked by CPIO is held as misplaced. However, considering that the information sought is already available in public domain, no further direction needs to be passed.
The appeal is disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Assistant Engineer & PIO, First Appellate Authority under RTI
O/o. the Superintending Shri Divakar
Engineer, Road Maintenance Agrawal Superintending
Circle-(M-11), Public Works Engineer, Road Maintenance
Department (Government of NCT Circle-(M-11), Public Works
of Delhi), 13 th Floor, MSO Department (Government of NCT
Building, I. P. Estate, New of Delhi), 13 th Floor, MSO
Delhi-110002. Building, I. P. Estate, New
Delhi-110002.
SOM PRAKASH REHIL
House No. : A-147, GROUND
FLOOR, Lok Vihar, Pitam
Pura, Delhi-110034.