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/2008/00759//SG/0255
Appeal No. CIC /AT/A/2008/00759/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sudershan Singh,
House No. -16,
Green Park Main,
New Delhi – 110016.
Respondent 1 : Shri Santosh Kumar Vaidya,
SPIO,
O/o the Delhi Jal Board,
Room No. 414, Varunalaya, Ph-II,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.
RTI filed on : 11/03/2008
PIO replied : 10/04/2008
First appeal filed on : 10/04/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 17/04/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 09/06/2008
The appellant said about the details in respect of payment made by cheque in respect of
payment made by cheque for water consumption bill for the period 19/09/2007 to
24/12/2007, payable by 19/01/2008, for Rs. 437.00.
Detail of required information:
Details in respect of payment made by cheque for water consumption bill for the period the period
19/09/2007 to 24/12/2007, payable by 19/01/2008, for Rs. 437.00 in respect to water connection
no. 431 installed at M-16, Green Park Main, New Delhi.
1. Cheque No. with date of issue.
2. Account No. of the person issuing cheque.
3. Name of the bank on which payable with branch concerned.
4. Name of the person signing the cheque.
The PIO replied.
It is intimated that the information sought cannot be supplied to the appellant by the office of
Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya Ph -II, Karol Bagh, Delhi – 110005, as the
same has not been received from the concerned Assistant PIO so far. The concerned APIO i.e.
Director of Revenue, Delhi Jal Board are being asked to send the information to you directly.
Under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, appellant may file an appeal within 30 days of issue of this
order with the First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005. the Member (Finance), Delhi Jal
Board, Room No. 102, Varunalaya Building, Ph – II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“It is observed that point wise reply has already been furnished by ZRO (South) III. However, the
appellant stated that the information provided by ZRO regarding bank account number is wrong
and incomplete and as such the details recorded by the cheque reader machine should be provided.
The contention of the appellant was that the rent cheque of the tenant was issued from a Kotak
Mahindra Bank account having a 16 digit account number. The appellant who is the landlord is
presuming that the tenant has one bank account and hence the rent cheque and water bell will be
issued form the same 16 digit Kotak Mahindra Bank account. There is no basis or premise for this
presumption that the tenant should have one account only. Any way bank account details are
personal to the individual holding the account and should not be privy to any person other than the
account holder.
From the information supplied to the appellant it is observed that personal details of the tenant like
bank account No, cheque No. have been provided to the appellant. Such third party information
should not have been provided without the prior consent of the bank account.
From the discussion with the appellant it was brought out that appellant needs proof of payment of
water bill by his tenant. Hence, a certification to the effect that a sum of Rs. 459.00 were paid by
the tenant as water consumption charges for the period 19/09/2007 to 24/12/2007 will serve the
purpose. As regard other information which include cheque No., account No. and name of the
bank, branch and name of person signing the cheque, are personal details of the tenant and need
not be disclosed to the appellant. A certification of payment of bill in respect of water connection
No. 431 for the period 19/09/2007 to 24/12/2007 of M-16, Green Park Main, New Delhi is
enclosed with this order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sudershan Singh
Respondent: Mr. Bipin Behari representing Mr. Santosh Kumar Vaidya the then PIO
The respondent contends that he had given the number of the cheque as per the record available
with them. It is difficult for them to get the name of the Bank from whom the cheque was issued.
The appellants contention is that without details of the cheque the Delhi Jal Board would claim
that the payment was never made. The DJB has already issued a certificate to the appellant saying
that the amount has been received by them.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18th November, 2008