Dear Mr Singhal & other members It is a very healthy sign if we disagree. I have endeavoured to give detailed reasons for IC PB's approach in your case. I am sure her order will have reasonings too.
Lets be blunt, you lost this round of RTI. What I am trying to do is to get you and our other members to WIN the next time around. There is a saying "no point in flogging a dead horse", IMHO you should bury this dead horse and move on without attributing motives or incompetence to ICs or getting bogged into Writs. Who teaches better - the teacher who gives toffees to children, or the hard taskmaster setting high standards. Who is going to teach you RTI? A Masterji who never filed an RTI in his life, or someone who was has applied RTI for over 20 years? Section 6(2) is limited to the application only. Once the matter reaches appeal - "larger public interest" comes into play in view of section 8. RTI_India is a very frank group. We do not censor or moderate anyone who posts ON TOPIC messages on RTI. We may disagree immensely, but we shall fiercely defend your right to free speech on this forum. Nobody should hesitate to post here, RTIEXPERT or RTINOVICE this group is a democracy where the Moderators only intervene (reluctantly) to protect the larger community Sarbajit --- In [email protected], M K Singhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Mr Sarabjit, > I do not agree with your views at all as also communicated to the group through another message by me. I do not think if there is any differance in asking for particulars of allottees or list of their names, addresses and telephone nos. Sec 6(2) of RTIA clearly specifies that an applicant is not required to give any reasons in support of his request for information. Hence, why should you emphasize this. Thanks, > sincerely, > mksinghal > > > > > ________________________________ > From: sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 13 November, 2008 8:27:12 PM > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Is addresses of allottees of sheds/plots by Development Authorities an exemp > > > Dear M Singhal, > > In my view, your case was properly decided by the CIC - Ms > Balasubramaniam is actually one of our better ICs. Although > we should await the order, there is no harm in speculating. > > 1) You made a mistake by not seeking the "particulars" > of allotees of DSIDC sheds. Instead you asked the PIO > for "names", "addresses" and "telephone numbers". This is > like waving a red flag to a PIO - "aa bail mujhe maar". > "Addresses" and "telephone numbers" have the *potential* > to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a citizen. > There are a series of SC judgements on this, if we start > from "Gobind versus State of Madhya Pradesh (1975)" we > find that SC has consistently protected privacy of the > individual "in his home and in his affairs". > > 2) Please understand that whereas a PIO may lawfully > disclose such information to you, you have no *RIGHT* > to this information. Once a PIO choooses to deny such > type of information using 8(1)(j) the balance tilts > (very strongly) in his favour. > > 3) After the PIO denied you the information using 8(1)(j) > you should have attacked this properly in First Appeal > with detailed GROUNDs. The actual ground you used at FA > was weak and trivial. The FAA properly tossed it out. In > my view at this stage you should have strongly agitated > the "larger public interest" in your application - for eg. > suspected fraud in allotments (backed with some basis). > Since you evidently had no public interest in asking for > this information - the ground was not open to you. > > 4) IC PB very properly asked you if there was any public > interest in your request. NOT ONLY DID YOU ADMIT THAT THERE > WAS NONE, YOU STATED TO HER THAT IT WAS FOR YOUR PRIVATE > INTEREST. Under the circumstances any IC who acts by the > book has no option but to dismiss your appeal. Public interest > was the only course open to her to release the said info, > you hit your axe on your own foot by your answer. > > 5) I must stress that when an appellant goes into any > hearing where a 8(1) exemption is used, he must have the > exemption sub-section at his fingertips, and must have > researched SC and HC judgements on the subject before > stepping into the chamber. > > 6) You have already lost your case, please please dont > get a bad order for the rest of us by a DHC Writ Petition. > > 7) Lastly, if there was no larger public interest in your > RTI you should not have filed this RTI in the first place > had you bothered to act as per our RESPONSIBLE RTI CODE. > > PS: Please excuse my language & tone. My heart is in the > right place. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, M K Singhal <mk.singhal@ ...> wrote: > > > > This is just to share my experience of a hearing attended by me in > the office of Ms Padma Balaubramaniam, Information Commissioner, à 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, à 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 à 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 > > everybodyââ¬â¢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 à 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. > > mk.singhal@ .. > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to > http://messenger. yahoo.com/ invite/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
