Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000158
Name of the Appellant : Shri S.P. Madan
Name of the Public Authority : Addl. Commissioner of Police,
West Distt. New Delhi.
ORDER
Shri S.P. Madan, hereinafter known as the Appellant, filed an application
dated 03.10.2009 seeking the following information under the RTI Act, 2005 from
the CPIO/West District, New Delhi:
“Information of tenants at House No.A2/98 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
submitted by Landlord in Paschim Vihar Police Station for tenant verification on
25.08.09.
Copy of information of tenants at House No.A2/98, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi may be provided with the following details:
(a) Name of landlord of House No.A2/98, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
(b) Particulars of tenants to whom premise let out.
(c) Particulars of family members residing with the tenant and their
relationship with the tenant.
(d) Previous residence of the tenant and date of leaving.”
The CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police/West District vide his letter
dated 9.10.2009 informed the Appellant as follows:
“As per the report of SHO/Paschim Vihar, you are neither landlord nor
tenant of the property mentioned in your RTI application, hence the requisite
information could not be provided to you under section 8(1) (e) (j) of RTI Act.”
Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal before the First
Appellate authority (FAA). Shri Sharad Agarwal/FAA/Dy. Commissioner of
Police, West District vide his order dated 16.11.2009 has found no deficiency in
the reply of CPIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police/West District and has upheld
the decision of CPIO. The Appellant has thereafter filed the present appeal
before the Commission.
The matter was heard on 16.6.2010.
Shri S.P. Madan, Appellant was present.
Shri S.K. Kapoor, ACP, Punjabi Bagh, on behalf of the Respondent Public
Authority was present.
After hearing the parties, the Commission finds that the sought for
information is personal in nature and its disclosure has no relationship to any
public activity or interest. The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that
privacy is a cherished right of a citizen and the invasion of this right cannot be
permitted, unless larger public interest warrants it.
In view of the above, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the
decision of Respondents.
The matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
16.06.2010