Mr.S Ganapathi vs President Secretariat on 8 July, 2010

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000431 dated 30.3.2009
                  Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant       -       Shri S. Ganapathi
Respondent          -   President's Secretariat
                Appeal heard & Decision announced: 8.7.2010


Facts

:

By an application of 7.10.08, received in the President’s Secretariat on
13.10.08, Shri S. Ganapathi of Bommuru (Andhra Pradesh) applied to the CPIO,
President’s Secretariat seeking the following information:

“1. NGOs (Non Govt. Organizations) Postal addresses, contact
nos. that were attended “At Home Tea Party with our former
President of India Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam on the eve of
Republic day / Independence day.

2. What is the procedure to have a look of President’s
Secretariat Library? When I visited on 30.1.08 Rashtrapati Bhawan, I had
asked the guide to show me the Library, but he has not shown.

3. I may be arranged a copy of the President of India take our
charge and signature in the register along with the columns, after taking
oath for the past period of 20 years as per RTI Act.

4. Month wise energy consumption from 4/2008 to 9/2008 for
the President Secretariat with monthly maximum MD, monthly power
factor maintained and the connected load as on 1st April, 2008, 2007 &
2006.

5. How many officers are on category -X, Category -Y,
Category -Z under President Secretariat? It is reported me earlier that
formal request had been made to BEE to under take the Energy Auditing
of Residential Quarters. Has this job work was attended and implemented
BEE recommendations? How much load drop is expected tentatively?

6. A copy of the last test report of Energy Meter of Rashtrapati
Bhawan and when it was done.

7. Is there any early program for commissioning of auto power
factor regulator for maintaining power factor between .99 to unity like
several Govt. Organizations maintain (Western Railways, Singareni
Collieries, BSNL, Bangalore etc.) for a still better qualitative supply of
electricity for this Building.

8. It is reported earlier by the appellate authority (for change of
dinning table) that there is a committee constituted to look into. I am
interested in knowing the issues that came to the notice of the committee

1
in 2007-08 and also as on date, and the Members details with
Designations covered in the committee.

9. Bench Mark level of Rashtrapati Bhawan may be arranged.
Is it with Mumbai or Karachi MSL? At what height above this bench mark
at Ashoka Hall where British Govt. handed over charge to Indian Govt. on
15th August, 1947.

10. I am interested to have a look of register signing immediately
after taking oath by our Presidents of India. I will be in Delhi from 20 th to
24th Oct. (except 21st & 22nd, I have to attend Indian Energy Conference,
2008 organized by World Energy Council – IMC) and I may be informed
by mail.”

To this, Shri S. Ganapathi received a pointwise reply dated 10.11.08 from
CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, Rashtrapati Bhawan informing Shri Ganapathi as
follows:

“Point 1 Required information cannot be provided as it is
exempted under Sec. 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act,
2005.

Point 2 President’s Secretariat Library is exclusively for the
use of President and President’s Secretariat.
Point 3 Desired information containing five pages is enclosed
herewith.

Point 4 The month wise energy consumption for the period
from 4/2008 to 9/2008 is enclosed herewith. The maximum
demand parameter and PF maintained for the period cannot
be provided as the same are not available on H.T. meters
provided by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation.
Point 5 The number of ‘X’, ‘Y’ & ‘z” category officers in
Rashtrapati Bhawan at present are 23, 16 and 4
respectively. As regards energy auditing of residential
quarters, the same work is being carried out by BEE, which
is in progress.

Point 6 The licensing authority, NDMC, usually submits the
energy meter testing certificate only in case the same testing
is requested by consumer. Otherwise the test report is kept
at their end. Hence the energy meter test report cannot be
made available.

Point 7 The work of providing auto power factor regulator is
being undertaken by President’s Estate Electrical Division,
CPWD, Rashtrapati Bhawan and the same is expected to be
completed by Feb. /March, 2009
Point 8 The details of members of the committee are:

1. Shri Charles Correa, Chairman, Delhi Urban Arts
Commission – Chairman

2

2. Prof. Mohammed Shaheer, Member, DUAC

-Member

3. Smt. Sunita Kohli, Expert in Interior Decoration-

Member

4. Smt. Mohini Menon, President, External Affairs
Spouses Association – Member.

5. Smt. Vijay Thakur Singh, Social Secretary-cum-

                          Joint Secretary to the President      -     Member
                          Secretary
       Point 9        Bench Mark level of Forecourt is 729'-9" and level of

Darbar Hall / Ashoka Hall is 19′.1″ above this level, hence
Bench Mark Level of Darbar Hall / Ashoka Hall is 748′-10″.
Reference point is not mentioned in the drawing.

Point 10 As regards showing of oath register of the President,
it cannot be permitted as putting it on public display for every
petitioner hereinafter will lead to wear and tear. Therefore
this request is hereby rejected under Sec. 7(9) of the RTI
Act, 2005.”

Aggrieved, however, with part of the response, Shri Ganapathi moved an
appeal before Internal Financial Adviser, Rashtrapati Bhawan dated 9.12.08, as
follows:

“1. I prefer my First Appeal on the partial replies I received. The
CPIO has not arranged information for my question 1 stating
that it exempted under sec. 8(1) e and 8(1) j of the RTI Act
2005. NGOs are the only organizations who move first for
any natural calamity for arranging assistance for the needy
people, may it be medical assistance, later arranging
drinking water and bread slice etc. before Govt. machinery
act. Even our former President of India, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul
Kalam had also said this, which came to media next day of
that programme (at Home Tea Party) to leading NGOs that
were invited. Even GOI donates to the interested NGOs
from Public fund. In such cases how rule 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j)
are applicable as confidential. Hence the information may
be arranged as this is not under National Secret matter.

2. It is the interest shown on President’s Secretariat library to have
a look. In the long 45 years of my journey, I had the
occasion to have a look and spend some time at different
IITs, NITs & other leading organizations. When a person
has come as a visitor to Rashtrapati Bhawan, to allow 5 to
10 minutes our President’s Secretariat Library at least to the
interested visitors who feel happy, may be considered.

3

3. For question 8, members of committee are given. But the
issues came to the notice of the committee during 2007-08
and also as on that day of my question (7.10.08) have not
arranged hence these may be arranged.

4. For question 9, bench mark level as on date may be clarified
with reference to Karachi or Mumbai.

5. For question 10, all the oath papers can be exhibited at least for
visitors in lock and key on drawing board taking all
precautionary measures to safeguard the record and also to
have a present look of our former President’s signatures.
The visitors take much interest and also much pain to visit
this prestigious Rashtrapati Bhawan from all corners of our
country and even from abroad to enjoy the beauty and glory
of this building. Hence RTI Act 2005, Sec 7(9) may not be
made applicable for a look of this record at least for Sr.
Citizens and Foreigners.”

Upon this Ms. Rasika Chaube, Internal Financial Adviser and Appellate
Authority in her order of 10.2.09 came to the following conclusion:

“I find that the replies given by the CPIO are as per the questions
raised by the appellant. As regards Point No.1 since the appellant
had asked for the name of the NGOs who had attended the At
Home, their postal address and contact number, the same was
denied by the CPIO stating that the same was exempt under Sec.
8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. The reply given by the CPIO is in
order since this is covered under ‘fiduciary relationship’ and hence
rightly denied under sec. 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. As regards point
No. 2, since the appellant had asked for the procedure to look at
the President’s Secretariat Library, the CPIO had correctly informed
that the President’s Secretariat Library is exclusively for the
President and the President’s Secretariat staff. However, now in
the appeal the appellant has brought out that the request was a
suggestion and that the visitors who come to Rashtrapati Bhawan
could be allowed to see the library as a part of the tour, this will
have to be considered separately and cannot be replied to as a part
of the RTI. As regards point No. 9, the benchmark level asked for
and available in Rashtrapati Bhawan records has been supplied to
him and the information with reference to Karachi and Mumbai will
not be possible to give as the same does not exist in the record and
cannot be created by the CPIO. As regards point No. 10 indicated
in the RTI application, the appellant had stated that he wanted to
have a look at he register wherein the President sign after taking
oath. In the light of this query, the CPIO had forwarded copies of
the document keeping in mind the importance of the document and
that physical display of the same can lead to wear and tear. It now

4
turns out from the appeal that the desire of the appellant was
actually in the form of a suggestion to exhibit such documents for
the visitors. As mentioned earlier these issues will be examined
separately and cannot be dealt with under the RTI Act.”

Appellant Shri S. Ganapathi’s prayer before us in second appeal is as
follows:

“NGOs contact information need not be kept secret in true
spirit to our RTI Act 2005, effective operation. NGOs like
Rotary Club, Lions Club etc. are to jump when people are in
panic like said above. Hence my request may be considered
and information for Q.1 may be arranged.

The issues came to the notice of the Committee for Q.8. The
mentioned details and Appellate Authority also has not
touched the point 8 for second part. Hence I requested the
Central Information Commissioner for arranging the
information that is in need adequately.”

Put briefly, therefore, appellant Shri Ganapathi has sought a response to
question No. 1 and to that part of question No. 8 which has remained, in his view,
unanswered. The appeal was heard on 8.7.2010 by videoconference. The
following are present:

Appellant at NIC Studio, East Godavari
Shri S. Ganapathi
Respondents at NIC Studio, Rashtrapati Bhawan
Ms. Rasika Chaube, Appellate Authority
Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, CPIO

CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai submitted that this list of invitees has been
treated as private because this is a list of the President’s personal invitees
selected from among the members of the public. Besides the list has remained
uniform and, therefore, its disclosure could pose a security threat for some if
placed in the public domain. He also submitted that in an earlier case, this
matter was referred to the Ministry of Law & Justice, which has opined in support
of this argument.

5

Appellant Shri S. Ganapathi on the other hand submitted that there are
thousands of NGOs across the country. He wishes to know only of those as
command the status that will merit an invitation from the Rashtrapati Bhawan, to
whom he could turn to guide persons suffering from calamities to appeal to in a
time of distress. Respondent Ms. Rasika Chaube, Appellate Authority then
clarified that the list of invitees is not maintained according to NGOs, much less
such NGOs as operate in times of national calamity. The objective of appellant
Shri Ganapathi, therefore, cannot be met by providing him the list asked for, and
this request serves no public interest. Moreover, scrutinizing the list to identify
those invitees who come from NGOs would divert the resources of the
President’s Secretariat towards gleaning such a list from its records.

On the question of providing information on “the issues that came to the
notice of the Committee”, which is the part of question No. 8 has not been
provided, CPIO Shri Kidwai readily conceded that this information has been
inadvertently missed and will be provided forthwith.

DECISION NOTICE

A copy of the opinion of the Ministry of Law & Justice regarding the
disclosure of the names of the invitees to the “at Home” tea party of the
President’s Secretariat has been received from President’s Secretariat and
placed on file. According to this, Ministry of Law & Justice through Govt. Counsel
has in its noting of 6.3.’07 addressed to the Secretary to the President, opined as
follows:

“It has inter-alia been stated by the President’s Secretariat that the
invitation is extended by the President of India and it would be his
discretion to request the pleasure of the company of any invitee.
The recommendations, if any, for invitation would also be covered
under the ‘fiduciary relationship’ or confidentiality as a fiduciary
relationship includes not only legal and technical relations but
extends to every possible case in which a fiduciary relationship
exists in fact and to which there is confidence reposed on one side
and relating domination and influence on the other. Disclosure of

6
this information would invade the privacy of such recommenders.
President Secretariat is of the view that the Information sought by
Shri Nair cannot be supplied to him in he light of Sec.8 (1) (e) and

(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

In pursuance to our note dated 15.2.2007 Department of Personnel
& Training has examined the matter and is of the view that
information sought by Shri G. K. Nair is exempted under Sec. 8(1)

(j) of the RTI Act. It has inter alia been stated that the President is
also an individual and has a right to privacy. DOPT observed that
“who except the official invitees, should be invited to the “At Home
function” is a private affair of he President which has no relationship
with any public activity or interest. Disclosure of this information
would amount to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
President. No larger public interest would be served by disclosure
of this information. Extension of invitation to the private individuals
is the discretion of the Hon’ble President and that discretion should
not be subject matter of public scrutiny.”

On this basis Ministry of Law & Justice has advised the President’s
Secretariat to “decline the information sought”. However, in the present case, as
is clear from the discussions in the hearing, what Shri Ganapathi is seeking is a
reliable list of such NGOs that can be relied upon in times of calamity. For this,
the appropriate authority from whom to obtain such information is the National
Disaster Management Authority. Shri S. Ganapathi is advised to move an
application with CPIO Shri S. S. Yadav, Director & Jt. Adviser, National Disaster
Management Authority, A-1, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to obtain the
information required. The present application is not transferred to the CPIO,
NDMA because its wording is not conducive to obtaining the response that Shri
Ganapathi seeks.

On the response to question No. 8 being incomplete, the appeal of
appellant Shri S. Ganapathi is allowed. The information sought will now be
provided to him by CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai by speed post within ten
working days of the receipt of this Decision Notice. The appeal is thus allowed in
part. There will be no costs.

7

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
8.7.2010

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.

(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
8.7.2010

8