Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00313
Dated April 27, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Mamta Johari
Name of the Public Authority : Doordarshan, Indore
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.29.7.08 with the CPIO, DDK, Indore.
She requested for information in respect of attendance record from November
2002 to July 2008 and payable salary of Mr.Sunil Johari . She also wanted to
know the amount being deducted from his salary and information about how
much deduction of GPF is permissible and whether the GPF amount is being
deducted more than permissible limit and whether such consent was given by
Mr.Sunil Johari in writing or not. The CPIO replied on 2.9.08 stating that
information is about third party and denied the information under section
8(i)(j) of the RTI Act. He also stated that he had written to the third party
seeking his permission and Mr. Sunil Johari stated that he had been divorced
from Mrs. Mamta Johari and denied information since its disclosure would
harm him and his family. The Appellant was accordingly denied the
information. Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.13.9.08 stating that Mr.Sunil Johari who was her husband and that he had
deserted her and her child and is not providing any maintenance amount. She
stated that an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C has been presented by her before
the family court, Gwalior in which the inquiry is being conducted about
income of the husband. She added that Mr. Johari has also played a fraud
before the Department by deducting the GPF amount more than the
permissible limit with a malafide intention. The Appellate Authority replied on
11.11.08 directing the CPIO to provide all the information requested by the
Applicant in her RTI application. The CPIO then referred the case to the
Appellate Authority with the representation of Mr. Sunil Johari stating that
there are number of cases against him regarding the divorce and that
disclosure would harm him and his family. After the Appellate Authority
received the representation he considered the same and provided all the
information except the leave account stating that there is no public interest
involved in disclosing the same. Aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed
a second appeal dt.23.1.09 before CIC. In her appeal she stated that
information which was initially allowed to be collected by her vide letter
dt.31.12.08 was withdrawn by the Appellate Authority and therefore the
attendance record was not supplied to her. She prayed for restoring of order
dt.11.11.08.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for April 27, 2009.
3. Smt. Geeta Markam, Station Director, Doordarshan, Indore & CPIO, Mr. R.
Venkateshwarlu, DDG, DDK, Delhi and Mr. V. Pandit, ASE, DDK, Indore &
ACPIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant’s brother and Advocate Mr. Deepak Saxena came late at the
hearing and only after the Respondent left.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority has provided all the
information (except the leave record). The information was provided i) since
the information is already in the public domain and ii) on humanitarian
grounds. The Commission observed that in the second appeal, the Appellant
has requested for the attendance and leave records of Mr. Johari. The
Appellant also stated in the appeal that the attendance record is required in
connection with criminal cases filed under section 498A of IPC for demand of
dowry, with the police, informing them that Mr. Johari and his family
members have been harassing her for dowry and not permitting her to reside
in the accommodation which was allotted to Mr. Johari by the Office. The
Appellant also stated that she suspects that her husband has attended the
court cases without taking leave from office.
6. On perusal of the information provided and after hearing the submissions of
the Respondents, the Commission is of the opinion that the Appellant (and
her small child), having been harassed by her husband and then deserted by
him and not being provided any maintenance allowance, has a right to
information which would help her to seek justice and, accordingly, although
the information has been denied by the third party, allows disclosure of
information regarding attendance and leave records of Mr. Johari to the
Appellant in public interest. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide all
the available information to the Appellant within 20 days of date of issue of
this Order.
6. The appeal is disposed off
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Mrs.Mamta Johari
W/o Mr.Sunil Johari
C/o Mr.Vipin Kumar Saxena
Near Water Tank
Behind Gorkhi
Gwalior
2. Mr.R.K.Bohare
The ACPIO &
Centre Director
Doordarshan Kendra
A.B.Road
Indore 452 001
3. Mr.R.Venkateswarlu
The Appellate Authority &
Dy. Director General
DG : Doordarshan
Doordarshan Bhawan
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC