CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000463/SG/14897
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000463/SG
Appellant : Mr. G. P. Garola,
Assistant Engineer,
Uttarakhand Water Institute,
32 Rajpur Road,
Dehradun-248009
Respondent : Mr. M. S. Ojha
CPIO & Dy. General Manager
Allahabad Bank,
1, Gandhi Road,
Dehradun- 248001
RTI application filed on : 23/05/2010
PIO replied : 27/07/2010
First Appeal filed on : 30/08/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2011
Second Appeal filed on : 15/11/2010(Transferred from State Information
Commission, Uttarakhand to CIC-New Delhi)
Sl. Information Sought
1. The Appellant sought the name & address of the Bank Account No 292 .
2. Whether the above Account is in running condition or if closed then from when.
3. The details of the transactions from the date of Account Opening.
4. Whether Cheque facility was availed in the Account mentioned.
5. The name & Address of Indicator.
Reply of CPIO:
The CPIO rejected the application on the ground that the Appellant was himself a Public Authority which
cannot seek Information under The Right to Information Act from another Public Authority.
Grounds for First Appeal:
-The information was not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered as:
-According to FAA the Appellant was The Investigating Officer in some Departmental Inquiry and the
Application made by the Appellant was official in nature marked as confidential duly signed in official
capacity, while upholding the CPIO Decision the FAA observed:
"The Right to Information Act, 2005, U/s 3, provides The Right to Information to all citizens of
India.Public Authorities are defined U/s 2(h) of the Act and are not citizens of India. This is the case of
one Public Authority seeking information under RTI Act from another Public Authority. If this is
permitted, there will be deluge of requests from public authorities, seeking information from one another,
under the Act and diverting the resources of each other. Such requests among Public Authorities should be
made separately outside the purview of the Act".
Grounds for Second Appeal:
- The Appellant was not provided with the desired Information as required by the Appellant for
Departmental Inquiry as an Evidence pending due to above information against some official employees
on the allegation of holding profitable office outside the Department.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. M. S. Ojha, CPIO & Dy. General Manager on video conference from NIC-Dehradun;
The Appellant had sought information and since he had also revealed the fact that he is a
Government Officer the PIO had First Appellate Authority had refused to give the information. Section-3
of the RTI Act states that subject to the provisions of RTI Act information will be provided to all the
citizens. The fact that the citizen reveals that he may also holds some other positions does not mean he is
not a citizen of India. So long as the citizen reveals his name in the application it would be presumed that
a citizen has asked for the information and information should be provided subject to the provisions of the
RTI Act. Only if no name of citizen is provided it the application can it be justified since the citizen has
not filed the RTI application the application may not be considered valid.
The PIO now claims exemption in the hearing under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. From the papers it is
evident that the Appellant Mr. G. P. Garola is carrying out an investigation for the Uttarakhand Water
Department. In view of this the Commission sees that there is a larger public interest involved in
disclosing the information to help an investigation. Hence under Section 8(2) the Commission holds that
the information must be disclosed. Since the public interest in disclosure to help an investigation by a
government agency is larger than any harm that could come to the protected interest.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant to him
before 15 October 2011.
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
28 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)