Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Public Information Officer - Petitioner
Versus
V. Chaudhary - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2025 of 2014 & CM No 4213 of 2014
Decided On : 08-10-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Ms Nidhi Raman and Mr Chirayu Jain.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Right to Information - Section 19(3) - Section 11 - The court discussed the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Section 19(3) and Section 11, and their interpretation in relation to the disclosure of information by public authorities and the treatment of third party information. The court emphasized that the RTI Act requires public authorities to provide information to citizens unless exempted under Section 8 or pertaining to excluded organizations. The court also clarified that Section 11 does not prohibit the disclosure of information but provides a framework for handling third party information, and in this case, the denial of information under Section 11 was deemed unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed two RTI applications seeking information on unauthorized construction, which were initially denied by the CPIO and subsequently appealed to the CIC. The CIC directed the petitioner to enable inspection of relevant files and provide photocopies of documents, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was inconsistent with an earlier CIC order but not necessarily erroneous. It held that the information sought by the respondent, related to unauthorized construction noticed by the police authorities, should be provided to the respondent, and the denial of information under Section 11 of the RTI Act was unsustainable.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the entitlement of the respondent to access information on unauthorized construction from the police authorities and the treatment of such information under the RTI Act, particularly in relation to third party information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the RTI Act, emphasizing the obligation of public authorities to provide information unless exempted and clarifying the provisions of Section 11 as not prohibiting the disclosure of information but providing a framework for handling third party information.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the CIC's direction to provide the relevant information to the respondent.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner (PIO) has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 20.01.2014 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’).
2. By the impugned order, the CIC allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘RTI Act’) by directing the petitioner to enable inspection of the relevant files by the respondent and to provide the photocopies of the relevant documents pertaining to the information, as requested in the respondent’s RTI application dated 27.08.2012.
3. The petitioner claims that the impugned order is contrary to the view expressed by the CIC in an order passed on 05.07.2013 in respect of an appeal arising from another RTI application dated 26.11.2011.
Factual Background
4. On 26.11.2011, the respondent filed an application with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking information in respect of intimations/complaints sent by Delhi police to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 01.01.2011 to 26.11.2011 regarding unauthorized fresh construction of buildings. The said application dated 26.11.2011 is set out below:-
“To
Dated:-26.11.11
The Commissioner of police,
Delhi Police Headquarter, New Delhi
Subject:-Reg. seeking information under RTI Act, 2005.
1. P.S. wise status of the property against which complaints sent to the MCD from 01.01.2011 to 26.11.11.
2. What was the subject matter of complaints?
3. Provide name and rank of the police officials who sent the complaints in question to MCD as well as the name of the MCD employees who deal these complaints.
4. Intimate the complaint were subject matter and status of complaints filed with Delhi Police from 01.01.2011 to 1.26.11.11.
5. Information be provided ward wise and area wise in
Hindi…”
5. The CPIO responded by denying the information in respect to query at serial no.1 – that is, information regarding status of the properties in respect of which complaints were sent to MCD – on the ground that the said information pertained to third parties under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
6. The respondent filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) against denial of information by the CPIO. The FAA disposed of the said appeal directing the CPIO to consider the points mentioned in the appeal and to provide the relevant information/documents to the respondent.
7. Thereafter, the CPIO considered the points mentioned in the appeal and furnished the point-wise reply to the respondent. However, the CPIO denied the information in respect of query at point no.1 under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
8. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the CIC. On 05.07.2013, the CIC denied the information in respect of query no.1 on the ground that the said information relates to third parties information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The CIC further held that such kind of information with respect to details of unauthorized construction is with the MCD and directed the CPIO, Delhi Police to transfer the RTI application to the CPIO of MCD. The operative part of the CIC’s order dated 05.07.2013 is set out below:-
“9. On consideration of the submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission observes that the actual holder of information in the present case with regard to alleged unauthorized constructions is MCD because it is the MCD (in this case), which would eventually decide on whether a particular construction of building is authorized or not. The Police, as explained above, have only prima facie information. The authentic information in this regard would be available with the MCD in the present case.”
9. The respondent filed a second application dated 27.08.2012 with the Commissioner of Police seeking information with respect to intimations/complaints sent by Delhi police to the Munic
