Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The above ratio also appears in full measure while interpreting the provisions of Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act and therefore the Appellant's contention cannot be accepted.

The powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act specifically allow the CIC to inquire into any complaint filed by the RTI Applicant. The said section further allows the CIC to initiate an enquiry into the matter, if required which includes summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons, receiving evidence on affidavit, inspection of documents, etc. However, CIC does not have any power under Section 18 of the Act to allow Joint inspection of third party property to a RTI Applicant. Section 18 further does not grant power to the CIC to disclose any information to the RTI Applicant. Such power is mentioned in Section 19 of the RTI Act. The provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act were interpreted by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case Chief Information Commr. and Another State of Manipur supra as:

In light of the above, Commission, under Section 18 of the RTI Act, has the power to inquire into the matter and has same powers as are vested in a civil court and thus may initiate penalty provisions against the CPIO in terms of Section 20 of the Act. However, under Section 18, Commission may not direct to provide information and does not possess inherent power of the High Court to issue Writs to the Public Authority.

8. In the next submission, Appellant has highlighted the fact that since the properties (which are to be inspected) has been allegedly constructed without obtaining the No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the concerned department of the Public Authority, the property does not belong to the building/persons residing in it and thus the 'ownership' of the said property does not have any legal standing. Commission is of the view that whether a particular property has or has not received NOC is a matter between the property owner/occupant (claiming its legitimacy) and the Public Authority. The 'inspection' of the said property by the Appellant along with the Officials of the MCD is a separate matter. However, Commission is of the view that such information which highlights the NOC status of individual property must be in the public domain but 'disclosure' of the said information through inspection of the property by a 'third party' is not a solution to the problem and has not been inculcated in any legislative enactment (RTI Act or DMC Act). Arguendo, even if the said properties have not obtained the NOC or are unauthorized; there is a prescribed procedure to take action against/ demolish, as per the relevant provision of the DMC Act which does not give any right of inspection to any 'third party'. For Example, if any student is found using mischievous methods/cheating in a particular examination, there is a prescribed procedure to handle such answer sheets. No third party can claim to hold a right to inspect the said answer sheets of the student just because there is an allegation of cheating or on the grounds that the answer sheet belongs to the body conducting the examination. However, third party may claim the right to know the outcome of any investigation in the matter, which is not the same as claiming right to 'inspection' of third party property under the RTI Act. Such interpretation taken by the Appellant of the Observations of the Apex court in the CBSE case is incorrect. A clear reading of the provisions of the RTI Act concludes that the CIC does not have any power to direct the Public Authority to allow inspection of the third party Properties to the Appellant. Further, nowhere in the DMC Act is it mentioned that any 'third party' can be allowed inspection. Commission is in agreement with the Submissions of the Respondents that there exist a sound mechanism (by providing Delegated Statutory powers to inspect under Section 431 and Section 491 of the DMC Act, 1957) to tackle encroachment and unauthorized construction and which certainly does not confer any power to the CIC to direct any inspection.

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

The first part of this issue is that whether 'any material in any form' as mentioned in Section 2 (j) of the Act would include the opportunity to inspect. The intent of the legislature while drafting Section 2 (f) was clear that any information held in any form i.e. whether tangible or virtual form would amount to information (wider sense). However, inspection of the 'information' would certainly not include private 'house property' as it would lead to interpretation of section 2 (f) and 2 (j) in too liberal a fashion. Under Section 2 (f)-'information'- material in any form means that any document/record maintained in any tangible/intangible form. Now, if the MCD already maintains any record in tangible/intangible form of the said properties, the same would certainly amount to 'information' and the inspection of the same may be provided under Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act [Subject to provisions of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act]. The above understanding of law is in consonance with the Copyright Act, 1957 as mentioned by the Appellant in his submission, since any Copyright exists only in the 'work' which is expressed and not merely is an 'idea in the mind'. Similarly, right to inspect particular information resides only with the material in any form. Mere allegations of encroachment and not obtaining NOCs would not provide any right to inspect personal spaces to the Appellant. Also merely because Appellant doubts the integrity and functioning of the Officers of the Public Authority, this cannot be a ground to allow him inspection under the Act. Appellant is free to approach the suitable forums for any such grievance against the Public Authority but certainly not under the RTI Act. Hence, inspection of the private property by any 'third party' would not amount to inspection of particular 'information' under Section 2(f). Commission further observes that the properties to be inspected are in 'personal' capacity and not a 'public activity'. It is only the report/document/sample generated after inspection and which is within the domain of the public authority that can be accessed under the provisions of the RTI Act. 'Any material in any form' may not be equated with the term 'material in ANY FORM' as such comparison is odious in the present case and evidently overreaches the legislative intent.

14. In light of the above Judgments, Commission is of the view that the said inspection of the properties would certainly attract Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as it would invade the privacy of the owner/occupant(s) of the said property which is a Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and such 'inspection' does not have any relationship to any Public Activity or interest specially in the presence of alternate mechanism to carry out such inspection by the MCD officials as per the Provisions of the DMC Act. On the contrary, allowing such inspection of the personal property to 'third party' under the RTI Act may inculcate the 'misuse' of this privileged transparency right which will not be in the larger public interest.