Date: 01-12-2013 By
email
To,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi. Email: d.sandhu@nic.in
Hon’ble Madam,
Subject:
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001804/05309 dated 18-11-2013-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 draw your kind attention to 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. Hon’ble IC has selectively quoted from judgement dated
22-11-2011 in W.P. (C.) No. 5677/2011-- Jamia Millia Islamia v/s Shri
Ikramuddin of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, He has omitted substantive part and
soul of this judgment. As per this judgement, information relating to
lease/tenancy agreement should have been ordered to be disclosed. This may
amount to transgression of judgement of Hon’ble High Court. I presume it was
unintentional.
03. Section 8.1.d pertains to third party’s competitive
position and not that of a govt department. Unless the lessor/owner 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 [and
govt banks may not be exception]. 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 CIC 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. Such agreements of public authorities are in larger
public interest as stated in judgment of Hon’ble Court.
10. Tenancy agreement must have been registered by land lord
and Bank, and hence such document is already in public domain.
11. Decision punctures preamble of RTI Act. Please also
refer court judgement.
12. While accepting that a public authority is a juristic
person, it cannot have personal information which cannot be accessed under RTI
Act, otherwise entire RTI Act will be rendered ineffective.
13. Confidentiality mentioned by Hon’ble IC has no place
post-RTI enactment. Any information which is not barred by section 8.1 and 9
has to be disclosed.
14. Section 8.1.j cannot be invoked for information held by
public authority relating to its own working. It can be made applicable to
information supplied by individual [including juristic one] to public authority.
15. CPIO of respondent bank was absent in hearing. This is
serious matter and his explanation for absence should have been sought.
However, interest of Bank has been taken care by Hon’ble IC even without
presence of its CPIO.
Since
prima-facie the said decision of CIC is in gross contravention and defiance of
judgement of Hon’ble High Court and letter and spirit of RTI Act, it needs to
be reviewed suo moto by larger bench; otherwise ICs would be daring to defy
higher Courts also. I therefore humbly request you to 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.
I am attaching said judgement and decision of CIC
for ready reference.
I hope Hon’ble ICs do not intend to take
disadvantage of inability of common information seeker to challenge their
decisions in High Courts due to lack of financial capacity, time and expertise.
Each decision of CIC may be costing nearly Rs.8-10,000/- to public exchequer.
Note: CIC decision and Judgement of High Court are at
https://app.box.com/s/9w3g3xoy7sm29mk7qss2
