CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000584/3282
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000584
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. J.P. Gupta,
Flat No.204/1, Ist Floor,
Pocket D-12,
Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085
Respondents : PIO/Secretary, RTI Cell
Delhi Jal Board,
Delhi Sarkar Varunalaya,
Phase-I, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 11/12/2008
PIO : 09/01/2009
First Appeal filed on : 12/01/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 04/03/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 20/03/2009
Detail of required information:-
The appellant had requested in an RTI application to supply him with copies of the following
letters between the Delhi Jal Board and M/s Hydro-Tech Enterprises (P) Ltd. Along with office
receipts, diary numbers:
1. No. OA-2/06 (DJB) R-875 dated 13/06/2006 [with its page enclosure viz. "Civil and
Structural Engineers"
2. No. 01-2/06/Dvg. Dated 10/06/2006
3. No.OA-2/06 (DJB)R. dated 11/08/2006 [with its two page enclosure viz. "Bar Chart"]
4. No.OA-2/06 (Civil)/R-1326 dated 12/09/2006
5. No.OA-2/06 (Civil)/R-1358 dated 21/09/2006
6. No.OA-2/06 (Civil)R-1547 dated 23/11/2006
.
PIO replied.
The PIO replied in this regard that all the letters requested by the appellant were pertaining to a
third party and prior to issue of copy of letter, permission from M/s Hydro-Tech Enterprises (P)
Ltd. was required. A letter had been sent to them to issue the NOC in the same matter.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“I agree with the PIO that the information is third party in nature and no case could be made out
by the appellant that the information is required for any public interest. Accordingly, I uphold
the order of the PIO and appeal is disposed off accordingly.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. J.P. Gupta
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chandra PIO
The PIO has erred in refusing the information merely because of an objection by the third party.
Nothing has been shown to prove that the information was treated as confidential by the third
party, nor is any exemption clause of Section 8 (1) cited. Hence the order of the PIO and the
First appellate authority is not upheld.
The PIO has brought the information and the Commission has perused it. The Commission
directs the PIO to give the information to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO has provided the information to the appellant in front of the Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15th May 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)