Dear Singhal-ji Although we have discussed this issue before, now the actual order of IC(PB) is available. It is an eminently unassailable order.
1) Your first mistake was to file a complaint without availing of 1st appeal. 2) Your 2nd mistake was that although knowing in advance that PIO was relying upon the "invasion of privacy" exemption - ie 8(1)(j) you were not prepared with the counter to this "Larger Public Interest". IC(PB) was absolutely correct to ask you that question (it was in your interest she was asking). 3) The information you are seeking does not fall within 4(1)(b)(xii) Best Wishes. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "MK Singhal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
