CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001331/4038
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001331
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Raaj Mangal Prasad
C/o Pratidhi, Room No. 25,
Shakarpur Police Station Complex,
Pusta Road, Ramesh Park,
Delhi-110092.
Respondent : Mr. D. Verma
Dy. Secretary(Vigilance) & PIO
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Directorate of Vigilance
Level-4, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 23/02/2009
PIO replied : 20/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 27/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 26/05/2009
The Appellant had sought following information with reference to the news report published in
Sunday “Navbharat Times” dated 22/02/2009:-
Sr. No. Information sought PIO’s reply
1. A copy of guidelines for To obtain the copy of guidelines/directions
media issued by the the Appellant is advised to submit Rs.8/- as
Directorate of Vigilance, per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
Govt. of Delhi.
2. All the pages of file notings The pages of file notings cannot be
in this matter including provided as same are exempted under
approval of the Chief section 8(1) (d) & (g) of RTI Act, 2005.
Secretary, govt. of Delhi.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Non-furnishing of information by the PIO based on wrong application of Section 8(1) (d) and
(g).
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA dismissed the Appeal. The FAA justified the application of Section 8(1)(d) by stating
that as the provision uses the word ‘including’, the intention and spirit behind the provision is
about all such information (including commercial confidence, trade secret etc.) which should
meet the parameter of ‘larger public interest’.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
• Wrong application of Section 8(1)(d) and (g).
• There is no need to justify existence of ‘Public Interest’
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Raaj Mangal Prasad
Respondent: Mr. Amitabh Joshi – Present PIO on behalf of Mr. D.Verma the then PIO
The PIO Mr. D.Verma has refused the information of file notings on the plea that file nothings
are exempted under Section 8(1)(d)&(g). The respondent was asked to justify how Sections
8(1)(d)&(g) exempts file notings. He went through the RTI Act and accepted that he could not
see how 8(1)(d)&(g) have been quoted to be exempted for file notings. The FAA Mr. Ashutosh
Kumar has decided to support to PIO’s stand point by claiming that no public interest is going to
be served by disclosing the notings by various authorities. The RTI Act does not require any
reason to be given by an applicant for seeking information. The public interest clause is an
override to all the exemptions of Section 8 (1). This means that if any of the exemption clauses
of Section 8(1) applies information would still be disclosed since Section 8(2) states,
“Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions
permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to
information, if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.” Thus
the need to test whether public interest is involved in disclosure of any information arises only
when the first establish that one of the Section 8(1) applies.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 20 July 2009.
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 Mr. D.Verma the then 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. The PIO has refused information
on frivolous grounds without any reasoning. It appears that the Mr. D.Verma’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 24 August 2009 at
4.00pm 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 cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
9 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.
AK