Information pertaining to India Habitat Centre was denied by FAA u/s 2(h) relying upon CIC’s earlier order where IHC was not held as a Public Authority - CIC: present application was filed to MoUD; FAA to take up the appellant’s case afresh
3 May, 2014Information pertaining to India Habitat Centre (IHC) was denied u/s 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. 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. - FAA denied the information u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; relying upon CIC’s earlier order where, it was held that IHC is not Public Authority - CIC: present application was filed to M/o Urban Development (L&DO) which is a public authority, FAA to take up the appellant’s case afresh and dispose of the same in accordance of the provisions of Law
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 12.12.2012 the appellant has sought information on five issues as contained in his RTI Application.
2. CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2013 has provided the information to the appellant.
3. The first appeal was filed on 03.02.2013 as the desired information was not provided by the CPIO.
4. Vide Order dated 07.03.2013; FAA has upheld the decision of the CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 09.04.2013 are contained in the Memorandum of appeal.
HEARING
6. Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
During the hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that he has not been provided the required information on any issues of his RTI application dated 12.12.2012. However, the respondents rebutted the same on the basis of their letter dated 29.01.2013 read with FAA’s order 07.03.2013. On careful perusal of the CPIO’s order dated 29.01.2013 and FAA’s order dated 07.03.2013, it is revealed that both authorities have taken a divergent view in the matter. As per CPIO’s order dated 29.01.2013, the appellant was denied the required information under 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. 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 2005 whereas, the learned FAA vide his order dated 07.03.2013 refused to impart the required information to the appellant by taking the shelter of Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act 2005 by relying upon CIC’s earlier order dated 12.11.2012 in appeal no. CIC/DS/A/2011/002774/VS. It is needless to mention here that Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 defines Public Authority and Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 exempts the disclosure of information relating to personal information. ………2 -2- It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTI application (supra), sought some information from the CPIO of M/o Urban Development (L&DO) NirmanBhawan, New Delhi, on issues pertaining to India Habitat Centre (IHC), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03. However, it is amply clear that applicant has not approached IHC directly for the purpose. Whereas, in the earlier case (i.e. CIC/DS/A/2011/002774/VS), the applicant has approached to IHC directly to seek some information pertaining to IHC. Sh. Vijai Sharma, Hon’ble Information Commissioner, vide his order dated 12.11.2012, rightly, held that IHC is not Public Authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 by giving a speaking order thereof. The undersigned is also of the same views. Further, the facts of the present case are entirely different from earlier decided case for the reasons as highlighted in the preceding Para. Not only this, the Commission feels that the FAA has, vide his order (supra), disposed of FA without applying his mind properly in the matter. According to my mind, the earlier decision/order dated 12.11.2012 in the matter of CIC/DS/A/2011/002774/VS, is not applicable in the present case, at all. In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered view that order of the FAA is not legally tenable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, it is quashed and set aside accordingly and the appeal, under reference, is remanded back to the FAA with a direction to take up the appellant’s case afresh and dispose of the same in accordance of the provisions of Law within 30 days from the date of receipt of order under intimation to this Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri AseemTakyar v. M/o Urban Development Land & Development in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000660/KY