SOCIAL AUDIT Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000911/3666 dated 09-10-2013

Date: 23-11-2013                                                                By email

To,

Chief Information Commissioner

Central Information Commission,

New Delhi

Email: d.sandhu@nic.in

Hon’ble Madam,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000911/3666 dated 09-10-2013-Social Audit

As part of social audit I happened to peruse captioned decision. With a view to improve quality of decisions and RTI, I respectfully point out following infirmities in the said order:

01. The decision has contravened following decisions of CIC itself against principle of precedence, without justification for deviation. [Ref: judgement dated 01-06-2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.[C]/11271/2009 –Registrar of Companies v/s D. K. Garg]:

CIC/SM/A/2010/000989 dated 11-04-2011

 CIC/SM/A/2009/000402 dated 09-03-2010

 CIC/SM/A/2008/00136 dated 09-10-2009

02. Section 8.1.j relates only to information of a person [individual] and not govt department or organisation.

03. Section 8.1.d pertains to third party’s competitive position and not that of a govt department. Unless the lessor is in commercial activity of renting premises, it is difficult to justify how his commercial confidence or trade secret or intellectual property is adversely affected by disclosure of tenancy agreement.

04. It is an open secret that there is underhand dealing [corruption] in taking premises on lease by govt organizations/departments. Hence it is in larger public interest to subject such tenancy agreements to public scrutiny.

05. At the most, the lessor may have been given notice u/s 11 for being heard on disclosure. Information cannot be denied, just because it pertains to third party.

06. In decision dated 09-03-2010 quoted above such agreements are ordered to be put in public domain.

07. This information cannot be denied to Parliament.

08. Worst come worst, section 10 could have been ordered to be invoked,

09. Non-appearance by appellant cannot be reason to decide against him. On the contrary, when appellant is absent, IC should be doubly careful to ensure that he is not wronged keeping in view principle of natural justice and fair play.

10. Tenancy agreement must have been registered by land lord and Post Office, and hence such document is already in public domain.

11. Decision punctures preamble of RTI Act.

I request you to kindly take necessary action to ensure that correct and reasoned decisions are passed. If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it.