CIC/SG/A/2011/003715/17408 - The third party can not have veto to deny information

                                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION                                   Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,
                                       New Delhi - 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                               Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003715/17408
                                                               Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003715
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant :       Mr. Janak Raj                                                                   
                       R/o Sh. Layak Ram,
                       R/o: Kashital, P.O: Bahgwanpur, Distt.-Kurukshetra – 136156.
Respondent:    Public Information Officer Indian Nursing Council,
                       Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Combined Councils Building,
                       Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi – 110002.
                                                                                                                                             
RTI application filed on              07/06/2011
PIO replied:                               28/06/2011
First appeal filed on:                   28/06/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on:       26/12/2011
Information Sought:
1.  Provide the photocopy of all the files submitted for the recognition of ANM & GNM course by the
state Haryana, Distt. Kurukshetra in Bharat Nursing School.
2. Provide the videography of C.D.  of the inspection before providing recognition to ANM & GNM
course.
3. Provide the name of officers along with their post & date of inspection.
4. Provide the name of principal  & Lecturer  along with their  date of birth,  date of joining,  date of
registration if any, photocopy of appointment letter & resume.
5. Provide  the  photocopy  of  the  rules  & regulations  authorized  by  Nursing  Council  of  India  for
recognition of ANM courses.
6. Is there any nursing council who is already running ANM courses can get recognition. If yes, under
which act of education rule it comes?
7.  Can nursing school get recognition from the senior secondary schools. Yes/No.
8. Provide the information relating to student’s from the session year 2008-11 and 2009-12.

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. It is stated that INC gave the copy of the complete file/inspection report or other documents related to
Bharat Nursing School, Babain, Kurukshetra to third party because it is residential however above and
institution  is  inspected  by INC on 21-22/02/2011 and on the basis  of  inspection  report  the said
institution is recognized by INC w.e.f. 15/03/2011 with intake of 30 (Thirty) Seats for ANM Course
and 50 (Fifty) Seats for GNM Course.
Grounds for the First Appeal: Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not mentioned. 
Grounds for the Second Appeal: Unsatisfactory Information was provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant:      Mr. Janak Raj on video conference from NIC-Kurukshetra Studio;
Respondent:  Absent; 
The  PIO  has  refused  to  give  the  information  claiming  that  this  is  third  party  information.
Section-11 of the RTI Act is  a procedure which has to be followed but after following the procedure that
PIO has to take a decision about disclosure of information based on the provisions of the RTI Act. If the
information is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act the PIO must justify this exemption and deny the
information. The Act does not give a veto to the Third party to deny information. In the instant case it
does not appears that any of the exemptions have been claimed for denying the information and hence the
denial of information is not as per the law.

Decision:The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant as per the records available before 15 March 2012.
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. 
                                                                                                        
                                                                                             Shailesh Gandhi
                                                                                       Information Commissioner
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PRE)
16 February 2012
Page 2 of 2

CIC/SG/A/2011/000931/13627 - the third party does not have a veto to refuse disclosure of information

                                     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)

CIC/AT/A/2007/00264 - third party has no veto their disclosure to an information-seeker U/s 11(1)

                                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                                                    …..         
                                                                              F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00264
                                                                              Dated, the 17th May, 2007

Appellant:        Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
                       128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 011.

Respondents:   Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO,
                       Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
        
                       Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & AA,
                       7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow

This second appeal has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava against the order dated 3.11.2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA) corresponding to the appellant's first RTI-request dated 14.9.2006 and the CPIO's decision thereon dated 26.9.2006.

2. Parties were called for a hearing on 16.5.2007. The appellant was present in person whereas the respondents were represented by the CPIO. Counsels for the third party (M/s. Kothari Products Limited), Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta and Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta came late in the afternoon since their train arrived late. They were given a separate hearing, when the appellant and the respondents had already left.

3. The RTI-request of the appellant originally made to the CPIO read as follows:-
“Case of M/s Kothari Products Ltd was made in September, 2002 (rough date / month). Notice was issued in January, 2004. All the documents / pages are required for this case only under “Right To Information Act”. The required documents are:
1. Certified / Attested copies of all the pages of receipt given by M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. (Pan Parag) for receiving the Notice are required.
2. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters issued and received by the Central Excise Department between January, 2004 and the date when M/s. Kothari Products Ltd went to High Court.
3. Certified / Attested copies of all the cross examination details of cross examination was made in presence of Commission to decide the notice.
4. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters written by the Central Excise Department to M/s. Kothari Products Ltd, any person, etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
5. Certified / Attested copies of all the letters received by Central Excise Department from any party, any person etc. for disposal of the documents (other than in notice) taken into possession during raid on Pan Parag.
6. Documents referred in the notice are kept in Central Excise Office. Certified / Attested copies of all papers expressing possession of transfer of the documents from one person to another person.
7. Certified / Attested copies of all the note-sheet pages of all those which were in operation / use after January, 2004.
8. Certified / Attested copies of all the applications of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd made in High Court, Allahabad.
9. Certified / Attested copies of the all the replies given by Central Excise Department for point no.8.
10. Certified / Attested copy of the Order of High Court, Allahabad.”
“1. How many times senior officers / directors / representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have met Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner after the notice (September 2002) and till March, 2006? Please give the basis of the information also.
2. The entry number and date of Visitor Register which shows that senior officers/directors /representatives of M/s. Kothari Products Ltd have visited the Central Excise Office after August, 2002 and before March, 2006.
3. File Numbers of all files concerning the case after January, 2004.
4. The time period for deciding the notice is 5 to 6 months only. Why the notice of M/s. Kothari Products td was not decided by the Commissioner within that period?
5. Name & post of the Officers of Central Excise Department and the no of pending days for which action was not taken by the officer for helping in deciding the case.
6. What happened to the documents seized by the officers during raid of home of Sri Rajesh Sharma?
7. Name of the officer who are [sic] and were dealing the case for department before Commissioner for decision of the case.”
“1. To inspect the documents seized from the home of Sri Rajesh Sharma during raid on M/s Kothari Products Ltd.
2. To inspect the documents containing the details of the visitors for period January 2004 to March 2006.”
4. The respondents admitted that investigation in this case has already been completed and all formalities
including final adjudication have been concluded. The respondents’ main objection to disclosure of the
documents requested by the appellant was that most of these were third-party documents which could not
be disclosed as these belonged to that party. It has been the experience of the Commission that very often
the Appellate Authorities err in deciding whether to disclose or not to disclose information provided to the
public authorities by third parties. Important thing to remember in all matters relating to third parties is,
that the third-party has every right to defend the confidentiality of the information provided by him to the respondents, but he has no right to veto their disclosure to an information-seeker
U/s 11(1), any third party objection is to be evaluated on merit for a decision on whether it was valid in terms of the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO can and should overrule any such objection which cannot sustain itself when interrogated under the provisions of the RTI Act.

5. In the present case, even if considerable amount of information requested by the appellant pertained to the third-party, this entire information was part of an investigation, which has now been admittedly concluded. The only possible reason to withhold this information could be it attracting exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and, not any third-party objection.

6. Since, as admitted by the CPIO during the hearing, the investigation is now over, disclosure of all information involved in that investigation cannot now be said to be exempted under Section 8(1)(h).

7. It was posed to the CPIO whether he would have any objection to allowing the appellant to inspect the files connected with the range of information which the appellant has sought. He answered in the negative.

8. In consideration of the above, it is directed that the respondents, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, on a date and time fixed for the purpose, allow the appellant to inspect files and all connected documents corresponding to the queries the appellant had raised in his RTI-request. The appellant shall be allowed to take such copies and extracts, on payment of usual fee and further fee (cost), as may be admissible. The respondents are also directed, that should in their consideration parts of information would have been covered by the exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, such information may be withheld from disclosure applying the severability clause of Section 10(1) of RTI Act.

9. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.


                              Sd/-
                    (A.N. TIWARI)
           INFORMATION COMMISSIONER


Authenticated by –

          Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar

Address of parties:
1. Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, 128/947, Y Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208 0111.
2. Shri S.C. Jana, Commissioner of Central Excise & CPIO, Kanpur, 117/7, Sarvodya Nagar, Kanpur.
3. Shri Anil Bhatnagar, Chief Commissioner Customs & Central Excise & Appellate Authority, 7-A Ashok Marg, Lucknow.