Case history for information record: This is just to share my
experience in trying to get a list of allottees of Lala Moti Ram
Multistoreyed Flatted Factory Complex, in Jhilmil, East Delhi,, with
their addresses and telephone nos, under RTIA05 from DSIDC, Delhi. I
had applied for this info under RTIA05 on 07.01.08. CPIO, DSIDC
replied vide his letter dated 18.01.08 that the addresses of the
units could not be supplied under exemption clauses 8(1)(j) & (11) of
the Act. I therefore moved an appeal to 1st Appelate Authority who
vide his letter dated 21.07.08 replied that as the information
concerning addresses was directly related to the privacy of units and
had no relationship with any public interest, and the same could be
misused to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unit/allottee, and being third party information , it fell
under the purview of sec 11 of RTIA05 and hence could not be
disclosed without their consent. In the meanwhile, I had also filed a
complaint dated 13.04.08 u/s 18 of the act with CIC, Delhi. Ms Padma
Balasubramanium, CIC, Delhi heard this complaint in her office on
12.11.08 when both parties, CPIO, DSIDC, Delhi and the undersigned
were present. She issued her orders on the subject vide her file no
PBC/2008/00499, letter dated 17.11.08. She ruled that she was
satisfied with the reply of CPIO, DSIDC to the effect that only the
names of the allottees be provided without providing their addresses
and telephone nos so as to protect their privacy u/s 8(1)(j) of
RTIA05. She further stated that the appellant could ot indicate any
overriding public interest in providing this information and could
not explain properly how he is entitled to this information.
My afterthoughts: I am surprised and pained to get such a callous and
irresponsible order from Ms Padma Subramaiam,CIC. She has rejected my
appeal for information on 2 counts: (i) to protect privacy of
allottees u/s 8(1)(j) of the act, and (ii) because the applicant
could not explain properly how he is entitled to this information.
Reg sec 8(1)(j), it reads as follows: `Notwithstanding anything
contained in this act, there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen information the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the individual unless CPIO, or the
appellate authority is satisfied that that larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such inormation'. The said industrial
sheds were allotted by DSIDC to various industrial units/individuals
in public interest and hence it was desirable that information about
the allottees should have been made available on DSIDC websit e as
part of suo motto declaration under sec 4(b)(xii) which
says `particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or
authorization granted by any authority shall be published. An
allottee cannot be identified by his name only, his address or some
other info for his identification has also fo be given. If CIC view
is taken as correct, it would not be possible for any one to get any
meaningful information about allottee sof industrial shed/residential
plots from development authorities like DSIDC or about beneficieries
of other governmental schemes like the rural employment schemes etc
for check by well meaning individuals/NGOs and the very purpose f
RTIA05 would be defeated I fail to understand how can the contact
info eg addresses, telephone nos or whatever, about allottees be
termed as third party info and what harm could it's disclosure cause
to allottees. It's disclosure could however certainly cause some harm
to DSIDC itself if this info is used for scrutiny of the genuineness
of the allottees by the applicant.. Incidentally, it is stated that
the addresses and telephone nos of all persons are always given in
telephone directories, and industial units always desire to
publicize their addresses and telephone nos as part of their business
development strategy. It is also worth noting that Noida Authority
was similiarly reluctant to give names with addresses of allottees of
industrial plots but has now provided the same. Noida Authority is
also now publishing the names and addresses of RTI applicants on
their website. Various govts are now taking keen interest in
computerizing their land records and if only the names of the land
owners and not their contact addresses would be given in these
records, they would just fail to be of any use to anybody.
Regarding the second objection raised by Ms Balasubramaniam, CIC viz
that the applicant could not explain properly how he is entitled to
this information, it is stated that during the hearing, she had asked
me as to what public interest would be served by supply of this
information to me and as to why did I require this info. I had told
her that I was not a public leader and had therefore not asked for
this info in public interest but only for my info and further that
u/s 6(2) of the ac, I was ot reired o gie ny reason for requesting
the info
What to do now: I think this is a good example of how CICs like Ms
Balasubramaniam are trying to stifle the supply of even basic info
under RTIA05 and supporting public authorities in their efforts to
hide the info. Can the objective of RTIA05 be achieved with such CICs
who are ignorant of the various provisions of RTIA05 and their
responsibilities in this matter. Was it right for the CIC to raise
the questions she asked me at the hearing.
mksinghal
