CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001849/8932
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001849
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kumar Phull
General Secretary, CWC
Karamchari Sangh (Akhil Bhartiya),
04143, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110035
Respondent : Mr. J. V. Bendre
Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager
Central Warehousing Corporation
4/1, Siri Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, Khelgaon, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016.
RTI application filed on : 23/04/2009 PIO replied : 29/04/2009 First appeal filed on : 22/05/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 02/06/2009 Second Appeal received on : 28/08/2009 Information Sought The Appellant sought information regarding -
• During the year 2009, whether any ex employee of CWC had sought information under RTI- Act,
regarding application sent to police for verification in respect of the attendant/servant employed at
the residence of CVO. If yes, whether the information was provided to him. If yes, please supply the
certified copy of information sent to him.
• During the year 2009, whether any ex employee of CWC had made any request under RTI ACT, for
the supply of Police Verification Report in respect of the attendant employed at the residence of
CVO. If yes, whether copy of Police Verification Report was supplied to him. If yes, please supply
the certified copy of Police Verification Report sent to him at the earliest.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
Information was not provided as the PIO stated that it related to the Third Party, and hence violated Section
11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Non-supply of information by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-supply of information by the PIO and Dismissal of appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Lalit Kumar Phull;
Respondent: Mr. J. V. Bendre, Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager;
The PIO has refused to give the information stating that it is third party information. If information is
sought by the appellant under RTI Act it can only be denied if it exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. Section-11 of the RTI Act relating to third party information is only a procedural requirement and does
not given exemption from disclosure of information. Section-11(1) of the RTI Act states, “Where a Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose
any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which. relates to or has been
supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the
receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the
information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally,
regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept
in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed
if the public interest in disclosure out weighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of
such third party.”
Thus even if the information has been supplied by the third party which the third party has treated as
confidential the law only requires that the third party must be informed to make a submission and if the third
party objects to disclosure the submission of the third party has to be kept in view while disclosing the
information. Thus refusal of information is a decision taken by the PIO based on the exemptions of the RTI
Act. The PIO has denied information without any basis in law and the Commission can see no reasonable
cause for the denial of information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant before 30 August 2010.
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 PIO 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 20 September 2010 at 11.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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
12 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)