CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /AT/A/2008/01262/SG/adj
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01262/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma,
49, Maulana Azad Society,
Near Bal Bharti Public School
(Pushpanjali), Parwana Road,
Pitam Pura,
Delhi -110034.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Delhi Jal Board,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Varunalaya Phase - II, Jhandewalan
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 23/05/2008
PIO replied : 24/06/2008
First appeal filed on : 04/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 25/07/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 01/08/2008
The appellant had asked in their RTI application (ID No. 2602) for copy of the
documents submitted by appellant’s father Sh. Zile Singh vide water connection
no. 62261K sanctioned on 07/08/2000 in his name.
Detail of required information:-
Please provide certified copies of the documents submitted for getting the
water connection no 62261 k.
The PIO replied.
The required information is as under:-
1. It is third party case, under the provision of the Act a letter for NOC has been
issued to Show. Zile Singh at B-497, Azad Pur vide copy enclosed as
Annexure “A”.
2. In response to the same, the owner Mrs. Archana Sharma has requested “not to
give or allow any details through certified copies, uncertified copies of
personnel inspection about the property B-497, who purchased the property
from Sh. Zile Singh Ex. R.C.copy enclosed as Annexure “B”
3. This issue with the approval of Wx. Eng. (NW)-IV/Jt. Director (R) CNNW
office.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“The appellant in his RTI application has sought certified copies of documents
submitted in respect of water connection No. 62261K. This water connection stands
at B-497, Azadpur Village, Delhi in the name of Sh. Ziley Singh and was sanctioned
on 05/08/2000. on receipt of RTI application a matter was addressed to Sh. Ziley
Singh, B-497, Azadpur Village, Delhi seeking his permission to give details of water
connection sanctioned in his name to Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, the appellant. In
response to this a reply dated 31/05/2008 has been received from Mrs. Archana
Sharma and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma stating that they did not want to disclose any
information regarding above property to anyone including Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Sharma. A second letter was received from Mrs. Archana Sharma w/o Rakesh Kumar
Sharma that she is the rightful owner of property No. B-497, Mandirwali Gali, Village
Azadpur, Delhi. and in support of that she has submitted a Sale Deed made by Sh.
Ziley Singh in favour of Smt. Archana Sharma, wherein the said property B-497
Azadpur Village has been sold to her.
The RTI Act, should be kept away from domestic squabbles and should not be
used to settle personal scores in the guise of seeking disclosure of information
pertaining to third party i.e. in this case the brother of the appellant. This is a case of
water connection of property B-497 Azadpur Village, Delhi in the name of Sh. Ziley
Singh. Sh. Ziley Singh according to the appellant has expired. However, the current
owner Smt. Archana Sharma has not get the water connection mutated in her name.
in view of the death of Sh. Ziley Singh brought to the notice of the appellate
Authority in the RTI hearing. Mrs. Archana Sharma who claims to be the rightful
owner of this property is required to submit documents to get the water connection
mutated in her name. The ZRO concerned is required to thoroughly check the
documents and ensure that transfer of ownership of the property is verified before the
ensure that transfer of ownership of the property is verified before the mutation is
allowed.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Respondent: Dr. Bipin Behari representing Santosh D. Vaidya PIO
Third party: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma on behalf of Archana Sharma
The PIO has denied information saying it is third party information and the ‘third
party’ Archana Sharma has objected. The appellant has pointed out that the
information he is seeking is with regard to a meter of his deceased father Shri Zile
Singh. Besides the PIO has advanced no reasons under Section 8 (1) to deny the
information. Mere refusal of a ‘third party’ without any exemption clauses of Section
8 (1) being applicable cannot be a ground for refusal.
The First appellate authority instead of restricting himself to deciding the matter on
basis of the proviso of the RTI act has chosen to give gratuitous advice of how RTI
should be used. The PIO has advanced no exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI
Act, hence the denial of information is without any basis in law. During oral
arguments the PIO claims exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act
The appellant represents that he is seeking documents of his deceased father’s
application, and therefore he has as much right to these documents as any one else.
The third party seeks time to submit his written arguments as to why the information
should not be given to the appellant.
The Commission agrees that the third party must be given a chance to give his
arguments. The third party will send his written submissions to the appellant and the
Commission before 21 January 2009. The final hearing will held on 2 February 2009
at 5.00pm
Present on 2 February 2009
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Paras Ram PIO
Third Party: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Mehta
Mr. Gaurav Kumar contends that he has the prerogative to decide whether to provide
information as he is third party. He says that he feels that the order of the PIO and the
First appellate authority is correct and his submissions made to the Commission on 21
January 2009 must be taken into account when deciding the matter. The information
sought by the appellant has no relationship to Public interest. The credentials of the
information-seeker must be ascertained.
The respondent contends that the information is provided by the consumer in a
fiduciary relationship and hence cannot be given.
The appellant contends that the connection was of his father and he has equal right to
get the information and that nobody can claim exclusive third party rights for this
information. The aim of transparency needs to be achieved, which will be achieved if
information is made available. There is violation of privacy, nor are the documents in
what could be called private.
The decision is reserved.
Decision:
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2 January 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)