Central Information Commission
Mr. S Vaikundarajan vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 17 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000600 dated 28-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S. Vaikundarajan,
Respondent: Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Heard and Decision announced: 17.9.2010
FACTS
By an application of 3-6-2008 Shri S. Vaikundarajan of Tisaiyanvilai, Tamil Nadu applied to the CPIO, DOPT seeking the following information:-
Kindly furnish copy of report with enclosures received from State Government of Tamilnadu for inclusion of Indian Administrative Service Tamilnadu cadre for the year 2006 and 2007.
To this appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan received a response dated 20-6- 2008 from CPIO Shri S. S. Shukla, Under Secretary, informing him as follows:-
"The document of which copy has been requested for has emanated from the Government of Tamilnadu and has been marked as CONFIDENTIAL by them and as such before supplying the same the consent of the State Government will be required in terms of provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly a copy of the RTI Application is being forwarded to Sh. M.K. Madana, Under Secretary & Public Information Officer, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, with a request to provide the requisite records directly to you under intimation to this Department."
Not satisfied Shri S. Vaikundarajan moved an appeal before Shri S. Jainendra Kumar, Deputy Secretary (AIS), DOPT on 19.7.2008 pleading as follows:-
"In fact, section 11(1) relating to or has been supplied by a 3rd party and has been treated as confidential by the 3rd party. I am not requesting the records supplied by the 3rd party. I am requesting the report sent by the State Govt., and which is available with the PIO. Hence it is the duty of the PIO to furnish the copy to me.
Moreover according to section 22 of RTI Act, the provisions of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the official Secrets Act, 1923, and any 1 other law for the time being in force or in any instrument effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
Upon this, Shri S. Vaikundarajan received the following order from Shri S. J. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, DOPT dated 30.3.2009:-
"I have carefully examined the reply given by the State Government to on letter dated 2.8.08. the guiding principle in such cases being that disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or interests of any third party, this has also been given due consideration. After such careful examination, I have come to the conclusion in the case of the present appeal made by you, the guiding principle that disclosure of the information in public interest outweighs possible harm or interests of third party is not established. It is therefore not possible for me as the Appellate Authority to supply the information as sought in your original application dated the 3rd June, 2008."
In this order appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan was also informed as below:-
"The State Government had denied the information on the ground/ conviction that your motive in seeking the information was in the context of wreaking personal vendetta against a 'third party', Tmt. B. Jothi Nirmala, IAS who while working as District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, closed the sand quarry that belonged to you."
Deputy Secretary Shri S. J. Kumar, Appellate Authority has also explained the delay in disposing of this appeal as below:-
"The appeal was received by me on 24.7.08 and immediately thereafter, i.e. on 28.7.08, I demitted charge of the post of Deputy Secretary (AIS) and immediately thereafter proceeded on leave for about 3 weeks to attend to some pressing domestic demands."
Appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-
"The appeal may be allowed and the CPIO may kindly be directed to furnish the copy of report with enclosures received from State Govt., of Tamilnadu for inclusion of Indian Administrative Service, Tamilnadu cadre for the year 2006, 2007."
He has expanded on this in a letter addressed to the Central Information Commission on 7.5.2009 as below:-
2"My requested information is available with department of personnel and training and this is a public document not relating to a particular 3rd party or not a personal document. Hence instead of furnishing the information to me forwarded the application to the State Govt., amounts to rejection of my request. Hence I have filed one appeal on 19.7.08 to he appellate authority and Deputy Secretary (AIS). Until 17.01.2009, I did not receive any reply. Hence I filed 2 nd appeal on 17.01.09. After filling the 2nd appeal on 30.03.07. The appellate authority rejected my appeal. Hence I am filling this 2nd appeal afresh."
The appeal was heard on 13.8.2010. Shri Shinoj K. Narayanan, a representative of appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan was present at CIC studio, New Delhi. Shri Narayanan also submitted authority letter given by the appellant in his favour, which has been placed on file. We had however received a fax from respondent informing us that CPIO, DOPT has been admitted to hospital and requested an adjournment. A copy of the fax has been placed on file. Appellant has no objection. The appeal was then deferred to be heard on 30th August, 2010 at 2.00 p.m. through video- conference.
The appeal was once again heard on 30-8-2010. The following are present.
Appellant Shri Shinoj K. Narayanan, Advocate representing appellant Respondent Shri S. S. Shukla CPIO, Shri S. S. Shukla presented a copy of a letter of 2.8.2008 from Under Secretary to Government Public (Special A) Department, Chennai to appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan in which the latter has held as follows:-
"In considering whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party, the Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:-
(i) The objection raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.
(ii) Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into. If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to 3 the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.
(iii) The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in the hand of a busy body to settle a personal score.
Based on the above decision your request is rejected."
Shri Shinoj K. Narayanan representing appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan, however, submitted that there was no possible harm or injury to the interest of Tamilnadu Government which would outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information sought. He further submitted that it is not for the CPIO, DOPT to seek "the consent of the State Government" which undoubtedly is a 3rd party before disclosing the information sought. Also, in his view, it is not for the CPIO to insist on deciding this case on merit, after receiving the third party's objection, which in the view of appellant was unfounded.
Because of the admitted presence of a third party in the present case, which is the Public (Special A) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, the hearing was adjourned to 17th September, 2010 at 12.00 noon, when third party was directed to appear through videoconference. In case there is any argument he wished to raise in the matter the CPIO Shri S. S. Shukla was also directed to bring with him the documents sought by appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan to enable us to examine the contents of the impugned document and so arrive at a decision as to whether the disclosure might possibly harm or injure any interest.
The appeal was finally heard through videoconference on 17-9-2010. The following are present.
Appellant at CIC chamber, New Delhi Shri Shinoj K. Narayanan advocate for appellant Respondent at CIC chamber, New Delhi Shri S. S. Shukla, Under Secretary & CPIO Respondents at NIC Studio, Chennai Shri Chandrashekaran, Under Secretary & CPIO Shri Kodimaran, SO 4 Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that the appellant had approached the Tamil Nadu Information Commission against the refusal of the information at the level of the CPIO, seeking copies of the document submitted. The State Information Commission in its order of 10.6.2009 had directed that the information be provided which has subsequently been done. The State Government, therefore, has no objection to the disclosure of the information sought.
DECISION NOTICE Because the third party in this case which is the Public (Special A) Department, Chennai has no objection to disclosure of the information sought by appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan, the same will now be provided to appellant Shri S. Vaikundarajan by CPIO Shri S. S. Shukla, Under Secretary, DOPT within ten working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17-9-2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17-9-2010 5