CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000931/13627
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000931
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant: Mr. R. A. Singh
401/C/16/VIII Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East), Thane 401 107
Respondent: Mr. M. K. Janakiraman, Public Information Officer & APFC,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
(Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour), 341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051
RTI application filed on: 16/08/2010
PIO replied: 03/12/2010
First appeal filed on: 07/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order: 12/01/2011
Second Appeal received on: 05/04/2011
Information sought by the appellant:
The copy of returns filed under Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, along wth name of Employees filed by Consolidated industries bearing Employer Registration Code No.MH/20718 dated 01.08.1980 situated at 61, Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012 for period 01st April 2007 to 3l March 2010.
Reply by the PIO :
As Mr. R.A.Singh is not a member of M/s. Consolidated Industries he has to explain whether it is in
public interest or not. If yes he has to produce evidence as he is demanding information in public interest
Ground of the First Appeal: No information has been provided
Order of the FAA: The information requested by the appellant is third party information. The information is not to be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005 as no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information. The appeal is rejected.
Ground of the Second Appeal: The information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Absent at NIC-Studio Thane (Maharashtra);
Respondent: Mr. M. K. Janakiraman, Public Information Officer & APFC on video conference from
NIC-Mumbai City Studio;
The PIO has denied information stating that the third party has objected to disclosing the information. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is a procedural requirement which require an opportunity to be given to the third party when information related to the third party, which has been treated as confidential by the third party is required to be disclosed. This does not give a veto to the third party to refuse disclosure of information and the section clearly states that, “Such submission in writing of orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Thus it is very clear that PIO has to take a decision based on the provisions of the RTI act whether information has to be provided or not. The only grounds for denial of information under the RTI Act are the specific exemptions provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Besides Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act puts the onus of the providing that a denial of request was justified on the PIO. No reasonable cause has been advanced for denying the information to the Appellant.
The PIO informs Commission that then PIO Mr. Kamalcha had denied the information who has
since retired. The Commission warns all PIOs not to denying information unless it is exempted under provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act.
Decision:The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 10 August 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
22 July 2011
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)
Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000931/13627
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000931
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant: Mr. R. A. Singh
401/C/16/VIII Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East), Thane 401 107
Respondent: Mr. M. K. Janakiraman, Public Information Officer & APFC,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
(Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour), 341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051
RTI application filed on: 16/08/2010
PIO replied: 03/12/2010
First appeal filed on: 07/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order: 12/01/2011
Second Appeal received on: 05/04/2011
Information sought by the appellant:
The copy of returns filed under Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, along wth name of Employees filed by Consolidated industries bearing Employer Registration Code No.MH/20718 dated 01.08.1980 situated at 61, Dr. S. S. Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012 for period 01st April 2007 to 3l March 2010.
Reply by the PIO :
As Mr. R.A.Singh is not a member of M/s. Consolidated Industries he has to explain whether it is in
public interest or not. If yes he has to produce evidence as he is demanding information in public interest
Ground of the First Appeal: No information has been provided
Order of the FAA: The information requested by the appellant is third party information. The information is not to be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005 as no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information. The appeal is rejected.
Ground of the Second Appeal: The information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Absent at NIC-Studio Thane (Maharashtra);
Respondent: Mr. M. K. Janakiraman, Public Information Officer & APFC on video conference from
NIC-Mumbai City Studio;
The PIO has denied information stating that the third party has objected to disclosing the information. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is a procedural requirement which require an opportunity to be given to the third party when information related to the third party, which has been treated as confidential by the third party is required to be disclosed. This does not give a veto to the third party to refuse disclosure of information and the section clearly states that, “Such submission in writing of orally regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Thus it is very clear that PIO has to take a decision based on the provisions of the RTI act whether information has to be provided or not. The only grounds for denial of information under the RTI Act are the specific exemptions provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Besides Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act puts the onus of the providing that a denial of request was justified on the PIO. No reasonable cause has been advanced for denying the information to the Appellant.
The PIO informs Commission that then PIO Mr. Kamalcha had denied the information who has
since retired. The Commission warns all PIOs not to denying information unless it is exempted under provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act.
Decision:The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 10 August 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
22 July 2011
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)
No comments:
Post a Comment