Partly allowed

R S Malik v. Public Information Officer

Delhi HC15 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/6412/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the CIC's order dismissing an RTI appeal. It directed remand for the CIC to consider whether larger public interest justified disclosure of documents regarding water pipe standards, noting the lower authorities failed to invite third-party submissions or assess public interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the CIC to pass an order within three months considering larger public interest in disclosure.

R S Malik Vs Public Information Officer — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 6412/2014

¶4

R S MALIK ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms Latika Chaudhary, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Mr Dhanesh Relan and Ms Akshita Manocha, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶10

% 15.11.2017

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘the CIC’) rejecting the petitioner’s second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’). The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the First Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘the FAA’), which in turn was passed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the response of the Public Information Officer (hereafter ‘PIO’) of DDA denying the information sought by the petitioner.

¶12

The short controversy involved in the present petition relates to disclosure of documents such as gate pass, purchase vouchers, test reports issued by the manufacturers for pipes that were installed pursuant to the contract awarded to certain contractors for laying of pipe lines in Sector 29

¶13

and 30, Phase IV and V of Rohini, Delhi.

¶14

The petitioner had filed an application on 06.02.2012 with the Public Information Officer of DDA requesting for the following information:-

¶15

“ Subject matter of Information :

¶16

The information required by the applicant is regarding development of 258.17 Hectare of land falling in Sector 29 & 30 Part, Phase-Vi & V of Rohini Sub-Head for providing and laying Peripheral Water Supply Line in Rohini Sector-29 & 30, Delhi falling under Rohini Project Division No.2.

¶17

As per the information with the applicant the tender were awarded to M/s K.R. Anand and M/s Choudhary Builders and vide agreement No.-17/EE/RPD-2/2005-06/A and agreement No.7/EE/RPD-2/2008-09/A.

¶18

Information/documents required:

¶19

1 Provide the copies of Excise Gate Pass, Purchase Vouchers, Test Reports issued by the manufacturer for all Dia Pipes in accordance with Clause No. 8 and Clause No. 2 of the agreement for all consignments related to the above agreements.

¶20

2 Provide the copy of letter No.F.11(4)/08-09/AE-IV/RPD2/83 dated 15-11-2010.”

¶21

The petitioner apprehends that the pipes used for laying water supply lines in the land measuring approximately 258.17 hectares falling within Sector 29 & 30, Phase IV and V of Rohini, Delhi are not upto the standard and not of the requisite diameter. The petitioner apprehends that this is also contrary to the specifications laid down under the contract(s) awarded to the contractor(s).

¶22

The CPIO denied the aforesaid request by a letter dated 20.03.2012 on

¶23

the ground that the information pertained to third parties. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal before the FAA which was also rejected by stating that the requisite documents could not be provided “ without the consent of the agencies who have refused for the same in writing .” The CIC has also upheld the aforesaid decision by the impugned order.

¶24

It is seen from the above that the question whether any larger public interest is involved has not been considered either by the PIO or the appellate authorities. Merely because the information pertains to a third parties and such third parties have opposed the disclosure of this information does not necessarily mean that the same need not be disclosed to the information seeker.

¶25

In terms of Section 11 of the Act, the CPIO is required to invite third parties to make submissions with regard to the disclosure of information pertaining to them. The CPIO is, thereafter, required to consider the submissions of the concerned third parties and take an informed decision having regard to the question whether there are compelling grounds, in larger public interest, for disclosure of the information.

¶26

The information that is exempt from disclosure is specified under Section 8(1) of the Act. It is seen that even in the case of personal information the disclosure which is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, there is an exception which permits such disclosure in a case where the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is “ satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information .”

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the

¶28

observations made herein and pass an order within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce such material as the petitioner considers necessary to establish that the information sought by the petitioner is in the larger public interest.

¶29

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶30

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 MK

R S Malik v. Public Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Malik v. Public Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Institute of Food Technology Enterpreneurship and Management (Niftem) Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mukesh Dagar and Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarla Lal Vs Delhi Energy Developt.Agency & Anr.

Dilraman Singh Chawla Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cpl Manoranjan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bihar Rpnn Ltd. Employees Union Vs UOI & Ors.

Uoi(Thr.G.M.Northern Railway) Vs Mohammad Akhtar & Anr.

Gavade Kisan Babu Vs Union of India

Dilraman Singh Chawla Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Tata Steel Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.

Siddhartha Mohan Vs Saket Bar Association and Anr.

Ecoman Enviro Solutions Private Limited Vs the Competition Commission of India and Ors.

Ajmil Enterprises, Mumbai Vs Secretary Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and Another