Central Information Commission
Mr.Naveen Chandra vs Accountant General Of India on 9 November, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000819 & 900832SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 9 November 2011
Date of decision : 9 November 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Naveen Chandra
328A/115/1, Ashok Nagar,
Allahabad, UP.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o. the Accountant General (Civil
Audit), Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. A. Shukla, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We took up both these identical second appeals for hearing today through video conferencing. Both the parties were present in the Allahabad studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the copies of certain documents relating to a complaint made by some individual and the consequent enquiry. The CPIO had denied the information on the ground that it was third party information and also that the enquiry was not yet complete. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this view.
CIC/AT/A/2010/000819 & 900832SM
4. During the hearing, we considered the submissions made by both the parties. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CPIO/Appellate Authority was not right in treating this information as third party information in the first place. Merely because somebody makes a complaint against someone else, that complaint does not become third party information. Section 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly mandates that only when a third party expressly claims the information provided by it to the public authority to be treated as confidential, only then he needs to be consulted before deciding on the disclosure of such information. In this case, it is not so.
5. Secondly, merely because an enquiry was pending at the relevant time, the desired information could not have been with held. Neither the CPIO nor the Appellate Authority has explained how the disclosure of the desired information would have impeded the process of investigation/enquiry. Besides, the kind of information which the Appellant has sought does not seem to be such as to adversely affect any enquiry into the said complaint. In any case, as the Respondent reported, the enquiry was now over. Hence, the information must be disclosed in its entirety now.
6. We direct the CPIO to disclose all the desired information including photocopies of all the records and documents stated therein within 10 working days of receiving this order.
7. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/AT/A/2010/000819 & 900832SM (Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/AT/A/2010/000819 & 900832SM