CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00045/SG/4469
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00045
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
159 SFS Flats DDA, C&D block
Shalimar Bagh,
Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110088
Respondent : PIO(s)
Director (Vigilance)
DDA, B-block 5th floor
Vikas Sadan,New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 08/07/2008
PIO replied : 11/08/2008
First Appeal filed on : 13/08/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 12/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 10/11/2008
Information sought:
The Appellant had sought information in regard to his following complaints filed with the
Vigilance department of DDA:
F.27 MISC/GC-1/1362/2007/DDA/VIG
27(MISC) GC-643-03/VIG/AV-I
F-27(MISC) GC-841/07
File No. F. 132(117) 90/SFS/MN/III/Flat No 112- SFS Mukherjee Nagar
File No.131 (16) 94/SFS/MN/II/Flat No 11-SFS Mukherjee Nagar
1) Copy of the reply given by the FAH dept./Housing dept. of DDA for the above
mentioned complaints.
2) To provide file noting of the of the vigilance complaint maintained by all the
aforesaid depts..
3) Copy of the explanation sought from the FAH dept./Housing Dept. of DDA by the
Vigilance dept.
4) To facilitate inspection of all records maintained by the said departments of DDA.
PIO's Reply:
The information was stated to be third party information and hence was denied under Section
8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant claimed that the inspections of vigilance complaints were stated as third party
and hence wrongly denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Appeal was rejected and the PIO's decision was upheld.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response of the PIO and order of the FAA. The Appellant moreover claimed
that he as an complainant had a locus to know the outcome of the complaint filed by him, for
deriving such context he cited various Supreme Court rulings as well.
NOTE:
The Appeal was earlier decided by Information Commissioner Mr. M.L.Sharma on
27/02/2009 whereby it was observed that the Appellant had sought inspection of DDA files
relating to third party, which was objected to by DDA, having alleged business motive as
well behind the entire exercise, which was not disregarded. Furthermore, it was stated that the
reliance placed by the Appellant on the Supreme Court rulings did not help him as such, since
the FIR lodged u/s 154 CrPC stood on a different legal footing vis-à-vis an RTI Application.
In the aforesaid view the Appeal was said to be having no merit and was accordingly
dismissed.
The Appeal was transferred to Information Commissioner Mr. Shailesh Gandhi and was
scheduled for hearing on 18/08/2009.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Gupta
Respondent: Mr. Alok Swarup, Director (Vig.) DDA
The Respondent claims that he has not given the information since he believes that the
Appellant is using this information for business purposes. The Commission asked the
Respondent whether any provision under the RTI Act barred such use. The Commission
explained that the overriding principle of the RTI Act is Section 3 which very elegantly states
“subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information”.
Section 6(2) of the Act has explicitly stated “an Applicant making request for information
shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal
details except those that may be necessary for contacting him”. Thus Parliament was very
clear in its thinking that since right to information is the fundamental right of citizens and
citizens own the information, no reasons need to be given for accessing the information. IN
fact, Parliament expected that Public Authorities will put up most of the information into
public domain suo moto as mandated under Section 4. The PIO is directed to give the
information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the Appellant before 31 August 2009.
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
18/08/2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)