CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000043/6831
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000043
Appellant : Mr. Roshanlal Sharma
R/o 5449, Street No.16
Balbir Nagar (Ext.)
Shahadara, New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Subhash Chand
Public Information Officer & VATO
O/o the DC (Zone-VIII)
Department of Trade and Tax (GNCTD)
8th floor, I.P Estate,
New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 21/07/2009
PIO replied : 19/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : 04/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 17/11/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 12/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 15/02/2010
Information Sought:
Appellant had sought information in regard to certain complaints filed against a shop run by him
in his residential area Balbir Nagar
1) Copy of the complaint which was filed against the Appellant around November
2008.Copy of the action taken report on the said complaint.
2) Copy of the complaint which was filed against the Appellant around March 2009.Copy of
the action taken report on the said complaint.
PIO's Reply:
Information was denied citing the cause of third party, further quoting Section 8(1).
Grounds for First Appeal:
Aggrieved by the information given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
It was observed that the Appellant himself happens to be one of the parties and as such he cannot
be denied the required information on the third party grounds. Further, it was stated that the PIO
should have made use of the provisions of Section 11(1) if he were to claim an exemption under
the third party clause. Accordingly, the PIO was directed to pass fresh orders.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information provided in compliance to the FAA orders is found unsatisfactory as the PIO
informed that the third party has expressed his refusal to provide the personal information to the
Appellant.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Roshanlal Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chand, Public Information Officer & VATO;
An individual has field a complaint against the Appellant which the PIO admits was a
false and frivolous complaint. After the order of the First Appellate Authority the PIO sought the
comment of the complainant to seek his views on giving a photocopy of the complaint to the
Appellant. The complainant has told the PIO that he is worried for his safety and hence his
identity should not be revealed to the Appellant. Thus the complainant is seeking the protection
of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It is legitimate for a person to fear that his physical safety may
be compromised if his name is disclosed to the person against whom he has made a complaint.
The Commission directs that the PIO will blank out the name and address of the complainant
thus severing part of the information as per the provision of Section 10 of the RTI Act and give a
photocopy of the complaint as well as action taken on the complaint to the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs that the PIO will blank out the name and address of the
complainant thus severing part of the information as per the provision of Section 10 of the RTI
Act and give a photocopy of the complaint as well as action taken on the complaint to the
Appellant before 25 February 2010.
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
15 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)