This is just to share my experience of a hearing attended by me in the office
of Ms Padma Balaubramaniam, Information Commissioner, New Delhi on Nov 12, 08.
I had requested CPIO, Delhi State Industrial Devlopment Corporation (DSIDC),
Patparganj, Delhi, vide my application dated 07.01.08, to supply me a list of
allottees of the multistoreyed flatted factory complex built by them under
relocation scheme in Jhilmil, East Delhi. The list was to include names,
addresses and telephone nos of allottees. The CPIO however refused to supply
the list with the addresses of allottees since, according to him, addresses
could not be supplied under exemption clause no 8(1)(j) and clause 11 of h act.
I thereafter preferred 1st appeal stating that the addresses were part of the
identity of the allottees and could not be denied under the said exmption
clauses. The 1st Appelat Authority however ruled that the addresses could not
be disclosed under the exemption clause
as the addresses were directly related to the privacy of the units, they had
no relationship with any public interest and they could be misused to cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the allottees. Not satisfied, I filed
2nd appeal with CIC, Delhi and my 2nd appeal was heard by Ms Padma
Balasubramanium, Information Commissioner in her office on 12.11.08. Instead of
considering my plea that addresses were an intrinsic part of the identity of
allottees, she enquired why did I require the list of allottees with addresses
and what public interest it would serve. I told her that I was not a public
leader and was not concerned if they would be of any public interest. I needed
this list for my personal information. She then asked me why was I interested
in this information. I told her that as per RTIA, I was not required to give
reasons while asking for this information. In fact, this information should
already have been given on DSIDC website for
everybody’s information. She then asked me if I could similiarly ask for her
residential address too. I told her that since she was a govt employee, I could
certainly ask for it too. She said she was not convinced. She agreed with CPIO,
DSIDC that the list should not contain the addresses of the allottees in view
of the exemption clauses.
I would like to know the comments of the members if such an interpretation by
IC, Delhi in regard to addresses of allottees is correct and if there were any
such precedants of this nature in the past.
It would be interesting to recollect that voter lists, telephone directory etc
give names as well as addresses and the present stress of Govts to publish land
records would be meaningless if the names with addresses of the land owners are
not given. All Development Authorities eg GDA, DDA, Noida etc hould be required
to give the names and addresses of their allottees on their websites as part of
Sec 4 suo moto declaration.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
