CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00297 dated 16-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri L. D. Chopra
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Model Town
Decision announced 11.9.'09
ORDER
In our decision of 28-8-09 we had directed as follows:
“With regard to the refusal of information sought at Point No.1, it
must be understood that sec. 11(1) is not a clause authorizing
exemption from disclosure to any person. It only provides a
procedure for seeking objections of third party information that the
CPIO intends to disclose. In this case the CPIO has correctly
referred the matter to a third party who made the PCR call but on
receipt of objections from the third party has failed to apply his mind
as to whether the objections satisfy the provisions of sec. 8(1)
which alone allows for exemption. In exemption from disclosure,
possible clauses of the RTI Act that could apply in this case are sub
clauses (g) & (j) of Sec. 8(1). However, neither the CPIO nor the
Appellate Authority has examined the objections received from the
third party in this light. Because there is a third party in this case,
before taking a decision in the matter, the third party will be given
the opportunity to appear before us on the next date of hearing
when he/she will be asked the reasons for seeking exemption from
disclosure to appellant Shri L. D. Chopra who believes that he is
the subject of the PCR calls.”
While adjourning the hearing in regard to point No. 1 of the RTI
application to 11.9.2009 at 3.00 p.m., therefore, this appeal is
dismissed with regard to the remainder.”
Accordingly on 11-9-09 the following appeared before us:
Appellant
Shri L. D. Chopra
Respondents
Shri Brahm Singh, PIO/NW.
Shri Prem Nath, APIO/ NW.
Shri Rajender Kumar, ASI/RTI Cell.
Shri Rajinder Singh, ACP/ Hqrs/ PCR/ APIO.
Shri Nek Chand Verma, SI/RTI Cell/ PCR.
Shri Narender, ASI/ RTI Cell.
1
There is no representative of third party, who in this case was one Ms.
Bhavana who raised the objection regarding disclosure of information. The
information sought at Point No.1 will therefore, now be provided. Shri
Rajinder Singh, ACP, PCR was, in fact, ready to provide a certified copy of
the document in the hearing. However, appellant Shri Chopra requested that
it be sent to him by mail, which was agreed to. This part of the appeal is,
therefore, allowed. There will be no costs.
On the remaining questions in this appeal before us we had dismissed
the appeal by our above order advising Shri Chopra that should he wish he
may move an appeal against the order of JCP Shri Karnal Singh in this matter.
Shri Chopra has instead moved an appeal dated 7-9-09 before Shri N.S.
Bundela, DCP, NWD, a copy of which he has submitted in the hearing.
However, we find upon examination that this appeal to the first Appellate
Authority is against an order of 4-2-2009 whereas we had advised appellant
that he may move a fresh appeal before us against the decision of Appellate
Authority Shri Karnal Singh, JCP, NR, of 28.1.’09, since what had been
considered by us in that hearing was the order of 20-11-08 of the then
Appellate Authority Shri A.K. Patnaik. We would be quite willing to entertain
this appeal as a second appeal provided it is submitted with full
documentation. First Appellate Authority having already dealt with this matter
through his order of 4-2-09 cannot obviously re-hear the same case. This
appeal is therefore dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this Decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
11-9-2009
2
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
11-9-2009
3