Central Information Commission
Shri Anand Kumar vs Delhi Cantonment Board on 6 November, 2008
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00641-SM dated Nil.
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 06.11.2008
Appellant - Shri Anand Kumar
Respondent - Delhi Cantonment Board
Shri Anand Kumar, Appellant, was not present. On his behalf, one Shri Rakesh Kumar was present and requested for adjournment as Shri Anand Kumar is reportedly out of the country.
The following respondents were present:-
1. Shri R. Nanavaty, Cantonment Legal Adviser
2. Ms. Valsa Mathew, CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board
3. Shri Kamal Verma, Senior Clerk At the beginning of the hearing the request of Shri Rakesh for adjournment was considered and it was not agreed to as the respondents were already present, and the appeal has already been pending in the Commission for more than six months and no purpose would be served in further delaying the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, it was decided to continue with the hearing.
2. The facts of the case are as under.
3. Shri Anand Kumar had approached the CPIO in the Delhi Cantonment Board on 19.9.2007, seeking information regarding the name and address of the lessee for a certain building as also some related information. The CPIO, in his reply dated 18.10.2007, denied this information on the ground that it pertained to a Third Party and the legal heirs of the said Third Party had strongly objected to the disclosure of the information. Thereafter, the Appellant had approached the CEO of the Delhi Cantonment Board as the Appellate Authority, protesting the denial of information. The Appellate Authority had considered his appeal and, in its order dated 11.12.2007, had directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought as per the concerned provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO, in his letter dated 7.1.2008, informed the Appellant, more or less, on the same lines that the information related to Third Party which had objections to the disclosure of information and that the information did not involve any public interest and, hence, denied the information. It is against this order that he has approached this Commission in Second Appeal.
DECISION
4. The issues involved in this case were considered in some detail. The respondents argued that the property was under their management and that it was given on lease and though the lessee had expired, his legal heirs were engaged in litigation with the Appellant and that they had objection to disclosure of any information on the leased property.
5. It is an undisputed fact that all the records pertaining to this particular property are maintained in the Cantonment Board. The information sought regarding the leased property is contained in those records which are in the possession of the Public Authority. The argument that the information involves the interest of a Third Party is not relevant because this information has not been provided to the Public Authority by the Third party concerned in trust or confidence. In fact, the information squarely belongs to the Public Authority and no one else. Thus, the argument that any Third Party is to be consulted and its consent obtained to disclose the information, is misplaced. We direct the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the information sought be provided to the Appellant within 10 working days from today and compliance reported to us.
6. The Appeal is, thus, disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) 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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar