568RKAGGARWALDDA2910
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00568/LS
Applicant: Shri R.K. Aggawral
Public Authority: Delhi Development Authority
(through Ms. Promila Bhargava,
Commissioner(Pers) & Shri Alok
Sharma, Director(Vig)
Date of Hearing: 29/10/2008
Date of Decision 29/10/2008
FACTS
OF THE CASE:
By his letter of 17/11/2006, the Appellant had sought inspection of
File No.603/99/Vigilance Department of DDA. Besides, he had also sought
information on seven other points. The request had been addressed to Ms.
Neemo Dhar, Director (PR). The CPIO had sent reply to the Appellant by
his letter dated 28/12/2006 mentioning therein that information requested for
at point No.1, i.e., inspection of vigilance file, was to be given by Director
(Vigilance) and had claimed exception u/s 8(1)(d)(e)&(h) of RTI Act in
respect of information sought at Sl.No.2 to 7 of the application. Dissatisfied
with the information received, the Appellant filed Appeal by his letter dated
17/02/2007. The Appellate Authority had passed an order dated 08/03/2007,
upholding the decision of the CPIO.
2. The present Appeal has been filed against the order of the Appellate
Authority.
3. The matter was heard on 29/10/2008. The Appellant appeared in
person. DDA was represented by Ms. Promila Bhargava, Commissioner
(Pers) and Shri Alok sharma, Director (Vig).
4. During the hearing, the appellant made detailed submissions which
can be summarized as follows:-
(i) that he has not been provided copies of the complaints of Smt.
Promilla Rohilla, Programmer and Smt. Krishna Chamela,
Senior Stenographer etc.
(ii) that he has not received any reply in regard to point No.8 of his
application vide which he had requested for giving him copy of
the CD of sting operation done by Sahara TV on 01/12/2005.
5. Commissioner (Pers) DDA made a written submission before the
Commission in regard to point at (i) above, justifying the claiming of
exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. Her submissions are extracted below:-
• “The information regarding providing copies of complaints of
Smt. Promilla Rohilla, Programmer and Smt. Krishna Chawla,
Senior Stenographer made against Shri V.K. Dutta and others is
held in fiduciary capacity and it cannot be provided under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• The information regarding providing copies of complaints of
Smt. Promilla Rohilla, Programmer and Smt. Krishna Chawla,
Senior Stenographer made against Shri V.K. Dutta and others is
barred under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground
that it would have impeded the process of investigation of
apprehension of prosecution of offenders.
• Further, the information sought relates to personal information,
the disclosure of which has got no relationship to any public
activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of the complainants (Smt. Promilla Rohilla,
Programmer and Smt. Krishna Chawla, Senior Stenographer)
and, as such, cannot be supplied under Section 8(1)(j) ibid.”
6. She also adverted to Central Information Commission decisions in
Appeal No.60/IC/A/2006 dated 12/06/2006(F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00187)
(Sanjay Singh Vs. Department of Income Tax); CIC Order in File
No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00072 dated 31/05/2006 (Ajay Pal Singh, Vs. State
Farms Corporations of India Pvt. Ltd.); Order in File No.
CIC/MA/A/2008/01162 dated 01/10/2008 (Ms. U. Banumathy Vs.
Department of Posts) etc.
7. As regards the submission of the Appellant at (i) of para 4, the
question before the Commission is whether the exception has been rightly
claimed. Needless to say, it would depend on the contents of the complaints
under reference. Director (Vig)/DDA is, therefore, directed to personally
produce the relevant file(s) before the Commission for perusal and
appropriate decision in two weeks time.
8. As regards the submission at (ii) of para 4,, the Appellant vehemently
pleaded for obtaining a copy of the CD of the sting operation. It is his case
that no secrecy is involved in the disclosure of the CD as the same has
already been telecast on TV. On the other hand, Shri Alok Sharma, Director
(Vig), DDA, submitted that, vide his letter dated 24/04/2007, he had
informed the Appellant that the copy of the CD in question could not be
given to the Appellant, this being the intellectual property of Sahara TV.
Shri Sharma, however, admitted that he had not consulted Sahara TV before
declining to give a copy of CD to the Appellant. In view of this above,
Director (Vig), DDA is directed to seek views of Sahara TV as to whether a
copy of the CD could be given to the Appellant and take a fresh decision in
the matter as per law in two weeks time.
DECISION
9. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed:-
(a) The Vigilance File containing complaints of female employees
of DDA may be personally put up before the Commission by
Shri Alok Sharma, Director (Vig), for appropriate decision in
the matter.
(b) Director (Vig) may seek views of Sahara TV regarding giving a
copy of the CD to the Appellant and consider the matter afresh
in the light of the views of Sahara TV as per law.
12. A compliance report may be sent to the Commission in two weeks
time whereafter after due consideration of the matter, final orders will be
passed by the Commission.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar