CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01645 dated 7.12.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri P. Muthaiah;
Respondent - Prime Minister's Office (PMO)
Facts
:
By an application of 9.8.07 Shri P. Muthaiah of Tiruchirapalli TN submitted
an application to the CPIO, PMO stating that Thiru M. Siva, aged 24 years, s/o
Marriappan, resident of Village T. Mettupetty, Thevaram (Post) Meenakshipuram
Panchayat, Uthapapadayam, Taluk Thgeni, Distt. Tamil Nadu is a heart patient
unable to afford treatment and consequent to several letters written by MPs and
Ministers belonging to Tamil Nadu seeking assistance for Thiru M. Siva sought
the following information:
“I request to inform that when the above said letters reached to the
Prime Minister’s consideration or not?
If reached why not yet release the said fund?
The poor person belongs to down trodden society is entitled to get
the Prime Minister National Relief Fund or not?
If he is entitled when he will get the same and when the concerned
hospital will call him for surgery?”
To this he received a response dated 22.8.07 from Shri Kamal Dayani,
Director & CPIO refusing the information sought as below:
“The information sought has neither any relationship to any public
activity or interest not will any larger public interest is served
through such disclosure. Hence, the information cannot be
provided as it is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act,
2005.”
In his appeal before First Appellate Authority Ms. Vini Mahajan dated
19.9.07 Shri Muthaiah has explicitly sought the release of assistance to “poor
1
youth Shri Shiva”, upon which Shri Javed Usmani, Jt. Secretary and First
Appellate Authority, PMO has in his letter of 15.10.07 responded as follows:
“After due consideration of the matter in terms of the relevant
provisions of the Act, I agree with the view of CPIO, PMO that the
information sought by you has neither any relationship to any public
activity or interest nor will any large public interest be served
through such disclosure. The information sought cannot be
provided as I is exempted under sec. 8(1)(j) of he RTI Act.”
Shri Muthaiah has in his prayer before us in 2nd appeal pleaded as below:
“I request you to consider the matter as per last Para of 8 (1) (j)
of the RTI Act 2005 and do need full. Which would be a grate
help to take further step to save the life of poor your Shri Siva?
For which act of kindness the whole society of the patient will
remain grateful to you.”
The appeal was heard through videoconference with NIC Tiruchirapalli on
11.5.’09. The following are present
Appellant AT NIC STUDIO AT TRICHY
Thiru P. Muthaiah
Thiru Siva
Respondents AT CIC STUDIO AT NEW DELHI
Shri Davinder P. S. Sandhu Dir. (PMO)
Shri Amit Kumar, S.O. (Funds)
Shri Agam Aggarwal, SO (RTI)
Shri Sandhu, Director, PMO submitted that it is a policy of PMRF not to
disclose information regarding any applicant or beneficiary to any third party,
which is in keeping with sub sec. (j) of Sec. 8(1) of the RTI Act. In the present
case if the applicant Shri Siva or those recommending him including MPs and
Ministers were to move an application before the PMRF they would be provided
with the information accessible under the RTI Act.
Appellant Shri Muthaiah submitted that he is an ex-serviceman and since
Shri Siva is illiterate he has taken upon himself the endeavour to obtain
assistance for the young man.
2
DECISION NOTICE
The decision of the PMRF to disclose information only to the concerned
party is welcome, in light of the fact that much of the information held by that
public authority is of a highly personal nature and any disclosure could
compromise privacy and is clearly exempt under sub sec. (j) or Sec. 8(1) of the
RTI Act 2005. However, the recourse in such cases is also laid down in sub sec.
1) of Sec. 11 of the Act whereunder information regarding a third party can be
provided after reference to that third party. Shri Sandhu, however, has argued
that such reference is required only when there is an intention to disclose and to
seek no objection from the third party. However, in this case in keeping with the
policy of the PMRF there was never any intention to disclose information to the
applicant. Hence no reference was made to third party u/s 11(1)
In light of the above and whatever sympathy this Commission may have for
Shri Siva, because the application is basically urging release of assistance under
PMRF, upon which this Commission has no jurisdiction whatever, we find the
appeal without merit and it is hereby dismissed. However, as discussed in
the hearing, it will be open to Shri Siva should he need information to move an
application before the CPIO, PMO seeking the same. In the alternative such an
application could also be made by any of the MPs / Ministers who had
recommended the application to the PMRF. In case Shri Siva wishes to make
such application, Shri Muthaiah wishes to assist him, Shri Muthaiah may write
the application for him and after obtaining his signature / thumb impression, duly
attested by a magistrate submit the same to the PMRF. In the alternative this
exercise could be conducted at the Post Office with the Postmaster acting as
APIO under Proviso to sub-sec (1) to Sec 6 in rendering all reasonable
assistance to Thiru Siva to reduce the request to writing after determining this
orally.
3
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
11.5.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
11.5.2009
4