Appellant sought copies of 10 year old MLCs of persons claiming them to be his family members - CIC: The PIO has appropriately advised the appellant to approach the Investigating officer or secure the court order to take the copy of MLC of another person
The appellant is not present. The public authority represented by Mr. SH Idrisi, PIO.
2. The Appellant by his RTI application had sought for complete MLC dated 17.06.05. PIO replied on 18.04.2015, wherein he stated that as the information sought pertains to third party the same cannot be provided and also claimed exemption under section 8 (1)(h) and Sec 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed First Appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission.
3. The appellant is not present. The Public Authority made their submissions. The appellant is seeking certified copies of 10 year old MLCs of other persons, whom he was claiming to be his family members. According to the policy of the respondent authority, they will provide the MLC only to the concerned individual or the concerned investigating officer or on the court’s order. When the family members or the spouses are in dispute, they might seek the copies of MLCs of other family members, containing their personal information. Under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; & (j) the reports need not be supplied. The respondent officer also submitted that demanding 10years old MLCs do not reflect any good faith and there is no larger public interest involved in this. The PIO also submitted that even if the appellant is asking about his own MLC, he needs to supply ID proof without which there is a possibility of misuse of the information. The PIO has appropriately advised the appellant to approach the Investigating officer or secure the court order to take the copy of MLC of another person. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the FAA order. In the absence of larger public interest, it is not possible to direct the respondent authority to furnish the reports as the same is hit by Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. As the appellant is not present, there is no possibility of knowing the larger public interest in his demand. He filed RTI application seeking MLCs of the following persons: 1.Asmat 2. Mausada 3. Shane Alam 4. Naseema 5. Akram 6. Mahmmoda 7. Azidur Rahman and 8. Mohd. Rashid
The information sought by the appellant includes the MLCs of women also. In view of the submissions made by the respondent authority, the Commission finds merit in his submission and advices the appellant to obtain information as per the procedure which was intimated to him. Hence, Commission closes the present appeal.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Akhlaq Ahmed v. Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, GNCTD in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001304