CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajbir Singh
S/o Shri Kashi Ram
V + P - Gadhi,
Distt. - Baghpat, U. P.
Respondent 1 : Mr. Ravinder Kumar
Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Establishment Department
Town Hall, Delhi - 110006.
RTI application filed on : 18/02/2009
PIO replied : 17/03/2009, 18/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 17/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 20/05/2009
Second Appeal received on : 18/08/2009
The Appellant wanted following information related assets and liabilities of DHO Shahdara,
North Zone, Mr. Ashok Rawat:
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Monthly salary Not given
Information provided by the PIO (Shahdara North Zone) dated 25/05/2009.
2. Details of children with age, number of It did not cover under Section 2(f) of RTI Act,
school goers children with details of their 2005.
monthly school fee and other expenditures
and name of the school.
3. Details of transportation if any, was availed As above.
by the children.
Information provided by the PIO (Town Hall) dated 18/06/2009.
4. Whether he was living in his own house or in The information sought by the Appellant
Govt. accommodation. If he was living in through this point, being secret
rented accommodation then copy of the rent documents/information which could not be
slip. disclosed in the absence of a general or special
order, under provisions of GIO (S.O.114)
under rule (1) of rule 18 of CCS (Conduct)
rules 1964 clause 110 of the “Manual of office
procedure”, rule 11 of CCS (Conduct) Rules,
1964 as the information sought covered under
Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. Details of his immovable property with As above.
details of immovable property which was in
the name of his wife and children.
6. Details of immovable property which was As above.
purchased after going his service in MCD in
Delhi.
7. Details of property which was disclosed by Not give.
him at the time of joining.
8. Details of anything more than Rs.10000/- Not give.
which was purchased by him during his
service, with date when the appropriate
disclosure was made to the department & the
same was duly assessed in his assessment of
financial year.
9. Whether the Govt. vehicle was being utilized Not give.
for personal use or not.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA (Shahadra NorthZone) in its order directed the PIO/DHO (Shahadra North Zone) to
give the reply of point no. 2 & 3 to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajbir Singh;
Respondent: Mr. S.C.Gupta, Officer Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Ravinder Kumar;
The PIO Dy. Health Officer, Shahdara North Zone, Dr. Ashok Rawat had initially
refused to give any information on 17/03/2009 contending that what was sought is not
information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The reply was clearly wrong, the
queries at no. 1,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 are clearly information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. After the FAA’s order PIO CED Mr. Ravinder Kumar replied to the Appellant on points 5,6
& 7 on 18/06/2009 that information could not be provided under Rule 11 of CCS Rules and also
claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. He had also given no explanation how
Section 8(1)(j) would apply. The Commission has already ruled on the matter of providing
information on the assets held by a public servant in its decision no.
CIC/SG/A/2009/001436/4247 dated 23 July 2009:
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed
under Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed
since it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
“information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
the disclosure of such information:”
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In
common language we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to an attribute which applies to an
individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that ‘personal’ cannot be
related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. ( Hence we could state that Section 8 (1)
(j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that
the information must have some relationship to a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’ information
from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives
information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence
or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the
appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of
an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade
on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with
certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information
from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion
on privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, –
which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public
servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will
only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by
a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-
tapping. Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme
Court has clearly ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have
to declare their property details. If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their
property details it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants must
be considered to be disclosable. Hence the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in
the instant case.
Hence the information sought by the Appellant at query 1,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 would have to be
provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. Ravinder Kumar will provide complete information after obtaining whatever
assistance he needs form any other officer to the Appellant before 25 October 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO Dr. Ashok Rawat is guilty
of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 06 November 2009 at
11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)
CC:
Dr. Ashok Rawat
Dy. Health Officer
MCD
Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road,
Delhi