STATE Vs. CPIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case: - - 1. Shrihas filed first appeal dated 28 -12 -2013, diarized in the Commission on 30 -12 -2013 and received in the office of FAA on 31 -12 -2013 against the reply dated 23 -12 -2013 of CPIO in response to his RTI application dated 25 -11 -2013. Appellant was present. Shri Tarun Kumar, JS (Admn.) and Nodal CPIO; Shri M.K. Sharma, Registrar, and S/Shri T.K. Mohapatra, K.L. Das and Vijay Bhalla, CPIOs were also present. Decision with reasons: - - The appellant sought the following information vide his RTI application: - - "(A) Please provide certified copies of the directions/orders for priority hearing/disposal of the following Appeals/Complaints: - - (i) CIC/SM/A/2013/000781 (ii) CIC/SM/A/2013/000223 (iii) CIC/AD/C/2013/001439 (iv) CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 (v) CIC/SM/A/2013/000585 (B) Please provide the certified copies of all orders passed by the Central Information Commission in the following Appeals/Complaints and also the copies of directions/orders for priority hearing of these Appeals/Complaints: - - (i) CIC/LS/A/2013/000481 (ii) CIC/LS/A/2013/000149 (iii) CIC/LS/A/2013/000148 (iv) CIC/LS/A/2013/000147 (v) CIC/LS/A/2012/002648 (vi) CIC/LS/A/2012/002212 (C) After providing the above information, please provide inspection of the all files, records and documents and Notesheets including relating to registration, hearing and disposal of the Appeal/Complaints referred to in point (A) & (B) above. Please provide inspection of the complete file even if contains parts information. (D) Please provide copies of all notesheets and correspondence pages of the RTI file in which this application is dealt with."

(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved with the delayed response furnished by Shri K.L. Das, CPIO, in furnishing certified copies of the common order in the case of Shri C.J. Karira, which was treated as third party information by Shri K.L. Das, CPIO, and Shri Karira's consent was sought and on obtaining his consent, the information was provided after certain delay to the appellant. The appellant pointed out that Shri Karira while giving consent for disclosure of the above information regarding a case which was pertaining to Shri Karira vide his letter dated 22 -12 -2013 has referred to two decisions of the CIC which are reproduced below: - - "Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00663, dated 19 -11 -2007 However appellant has raised a pertinent issue in questioning the need for reference to the third party u/s. 11(1) That Section specifically refers to information "which relates t6 or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party". It must be accepted as a measure of policy in papers received by this Commission that none of the information so received in an organisation committed to transparency can be treated as confidential unless specifically marked as such. This is based on the principle that access to information is the rule and exemptions only the exception. It is understood that CPIO Shri Subramanian has made a reference as a measure of abundant caution, but having done so, it was hardly necessary to await a response beyond the ten days mandated u/s. 11 Sub -section (2). Such a practice will in future be abjured in dealing with such applications/or information before the Commission." CIC/AD/A/2009/000256, dated April 15, 2009 All the information sought by the Appellant herein relating to the RTI applications before the MEA in any case cannot be classified as personal information for the simple reason that the same forms part of public documents under a special enactment, the RTI Act, 2005 which in itself promotes transparency. The Orders uploaded on the website of the CIC contain synopsis of all the applications and First Appellate orders as well and contain no personal information vis   -vis the applicants and hence the information sought by the Appellant already exists in the public domain. Hence the exemption invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 could easily have been provided either as it is or at least after application of the provisions of the Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, neither of which has been done in the instant case."

(3.) THE appellant submitted that in view of the above orders of the Commission, Shri K.L. Das should not have treated the same as third party information and should not have proceeded further to obtain consent of Shri Karira under Section 11. In view of the above decision of the Commission, I agree with the above submissions of the appellant. The Nodal CPIO was directed to circulate the above position to all the CPIOs in the Commission for their guidance.