CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00196 dated 01-01-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Surindera Bhayana
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police, (DCP) PCR
FACTS
By an application of 20-9-07 Shri Surindera Bhayana of Rohini, New
Delhi applied to the CPIO, PCR, Delhi seeking the following information:
“Please give me the certified copy of DD No. dated 29.4.2007 of
PCR on 29.4.2007 at about 4 PM Ms. Santosh W/o Shri
Manohar Lal, R/o C-151, Sector-I, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi called
the PCR alleging Mr. Surindera Bhayana teared the clothes and
to offend her and hit the knife.”
To this he received a response on 12-10-07 from Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO,
PCR, refusing the information as exempt “under Section 11 of the RTI Act
2005, due to the objection raised by third party”. Shri Surindera Bhayana then
moved his first appeal before the JCP (Operations) New Delhi on 22-10-07
pleading that appellant has every right to get information of DD No. and its
contents because the appellant is the aggrieved party and his character was
assassinated by the complaint. Dr. Aditya Arya JCP (Operations) Delhi again
refused this on the ground that the information sought is “exempted from
disclosure under section 11 of RTI Act, 2005, due to objection raised by the
3rd party.”
In response to our appeal notice Shri V.K. Mishra, DCP & PIO, PCR in
his letter of 29-5-07 had enclosed a note recounting the processing of the RTI
Application in which he states as follows:-
“Since the applicant was not a caller, hence a 3rd party notice
was issued to the caller namely Smt. Santosh, W/o Shri
Manohar Lal, R/o C-151, Sector-1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi vide
letter No. 3145/RTI Cell/ PCR, dated 27.9.2007. In turn, she
raised her objection stating that copy of her complaint dated
29.4.07 may not be provided to Shri Surindera Bhayana.”
The appeal was heard on 1-6-2009. The following are present.
1
Respondents
MS. Shanti Devi, ACP/ Estt/ PCR
Shri Narender Kumar, ASI
Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter dated 22-5-
2009 and contacted over telephone during the hearing Shri Surindera
Bhayana opted not to be present. We have also received requests for
exemption from personal attendance from Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP, Security
and Shri B. K. Mishra, DCP cum PIO, PCR nominating the above officers to
represent the public authority in the hearing. This was accepted
DECISION NOTICE
It must be made clear at the very outset that section 11 of the RTI Act
2005 is not a clause exempting information from disclosure but only a means
of determining from a third party whether the disclosure of such information is
so exempt. The exemption clause of the Act is only sub section 1 of section 8
and, therefore, a plea for non-disclosure by a third party must relate to a sub-
clause of Sec 8(1) concerning exemption from disclosure. Hence we have the
proviso to section 11 (1) which reads as follows:-
“Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets
protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in
disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to
the interests of such third party”.
In this case there is no plea for exemption except that the third party
has objected to the disclosure, but the grounds on which such non-disclosure
has been sought are not mentioned. It is to be understood that even if this
information is sought to be treated as personal information i.e. invasion of
privacy and, therefore, exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j). It
also requires having no relationship to any public activity. A telephone call to
the Police Control Room is clearly is a public activity.
However, because there is clearly a third party involved in this matter
and the reasons for her objection to disclosure have not been determined as
being well founded the decision of Dr. Aditya Arya, JCP (Operations) Delhi of
2
7.11.2007 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Addl. CP (Operations),
Shri Ujjwal Mishra first appellate authority, to re-examine the objection of Ms.
Santosh wife of Shri Manohar Lal in light of sub-section (1) of section 8 and
give a decision in this matter within 10 working days of the receipt of
this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Jt.
Registrar, CIC.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
1-6-2009
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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
1-6-2009
3