Advocate Ira Gupta &
Dr KK Aggarwal
In the matter titled as “Public
information Officer versus V. Chaudhary”, W.P.(C) 2025/2014, vide judgment
dated 08.10.2018 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that whether
authentic information is available with another public authority is not a
ground to deny the information sought from a public authority.
“19. In
terms of the RTI Act, all information as available with the public
authority is required to be provided to the citizen unless it is exempt
from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act or otherwise pertains to
the organizations that are excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. Thus,
the question whether authentic information is available with another
public authority is not a ground to deny the information as sought from a
public authority. In this case, the petitioner had sought the status of
the properties against which complaints had been sent to MCD. It was his
suggestion (although couched as a query) that even though police
authorities inform MCD regarding unauthorized construction, they do not
take steps to stop the same by accepting illegal gratification.
20. The
petitioner had duly informed the respondent that a total number of 5313 forms
had been sent to the concerned Municipal Corporation. However, the balance
information was denied on the ground that it cannot be provided under Section
11 of the Act.
21. It is
apparent from the above that the petitioner diad have the information as sought
by the respondent. However, the same was denied to the respondent by referring
Section 11 of the RTI Act. A plain reading of Section 11 of the RTI Act
indicates that the same does not proscribe furnishing of information. In terms
of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, in cases where the public information officers
(PIOs) intend to disclose the information, which relates to or has been
supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by a third
party, it would be necessary for the concerned PIO to give a written notice to
the third party. The concerned third party has a right to make a submission
either in writing or orally and the concerned PIO is required to keep the same
in view while taking a decision regarding disclosure of such information. Thus,
Section 11 of the RTI Act cannot be read as a provision proscribing disclosure
of information; it is a provision to enable disclosure of third party
information subject to certain safeguards. In this view, the decision of the
CPIO denying the information by referring Section 11 of the RTI Act is wholly
unsustainable.
22. The
contention of the petitioner that the information as sought by the respondent
was third party information, is also unpersuasive. The information as sought by
the respondent pertains to unauthorized construction noticed by the police
authorities, and in respect of which information had been forwarded to the
concerned Municipal Corporation. Such information has neither been provided by
any third party nor has been treated as confidential. Undisputedly, the
information may relate to third parties inasmuch as it relates to the property
of those third parties. However, the information as to unauthorized construction
observed by the police authorities cannot be construed as one, which is to be
kept confidential in terms of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Subject information
that is sought by the respondent is gathered by the police authorities in
discharge of their functions and this Court finds no infirmity with the
decision of the CIC in directing that the same be provided to the respondent.”
Dr KK Aggarwal
Padma
Shri Awardee
President Elect Confederation of Medical
Associations in Asia and Oceania
(CMAAO)
Group
Editor-in-Chief IJCP Publications
President
Heart Care Foundation of India
Immediate Past National President IMA
No comments:
Post a Comment