RTI Judgement Series: Information about defaulters must be made available suo moto
Moneylife Digital Team 25 January 2013

Information about defaulters of payments cannot be considered third party information and in fact must be available suo moto under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This is the 27th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application


Taking a serious note of denial of information about defaulters, the Central Information Commission (CIC), ordered the Public Information Officer (PIO) of New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to put up the list of all defaulters with amounts on the website of NDMC. While giving this important judgement, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner said, public authorities are allowing large amount of defaults by some people for which the normal law abiding citizen suffers.

 

“The PIO is also directed to put up the list of all the defaulters giving the amounts on the website of NDMC under its Section 4 obligations. This will be done before 15 December 2009 and a compliance report will be sent to the Commission before 20 December 2009,” the CIC said in its order issued on 10 November 2009.

 

Delhi resident Piyush Jain, on 2 June 2009, sought information about defaulters in property tax at NDMC. He asked...

a) The number of people who regularly pay their property taxes in New Delhi Municipal Council area.

b) The names and addresses of people who owe more than Rs50,000 to NDMC in property taxes.

 

The PIO in his reply on 27 July 2009, stated that there are number of assesses against whom property tax of Rs50,000 and more is outstanding. “However, the information sought by the appellant (Jain) has not been complied in the said format. The appellant could, if he so desired, inspect the records available with the department,” the PIO said.

 

Not satisfied with the answer, Mr Jain then filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On 7 August 2009, the FAA directed the PIO to provide the information of third parties without disclosing their names and addresses, subject to payment of relevant charges. He said, “The charges would have to be computed and communicated to the appellant within a week. In case the appellant was interested in knowing the names and addresses of the third party, the PIO was instructed to proceed as per provision of section 11 of RTI Act.”

 

Here is what Section 11 in The Right To Information Act, 2005 says...

11. Third party information.-

(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under Section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub- section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 against the decision.


Mr Jain then filed a second appeal before the Commission due to failure of the PIO to comply with the orders from the FAA. During the hearing on 10 November 2009, Mr Gandhi, noted that the FAA had erred in asking the PIO to make a demand for additional fee for the information since the 30 days already elapsed. The PIO has sent a letter after the FAA’s order and demanded Rs276 for supply 138 pages of information.

 

The Commission mentioned that according to information provided by the PIO, the annual budget of NMDC was about Rs1,000 crore while the amount due from defaulters just from property tax was over Rs650 crore.

 

Mr Gandhi, then directed the PIO to put up the list of all defaulters giving the amounts on the website of NDMC so that citizens can know the individuals and institutions who are being financed by public funds. “The PIO will provide the information free of cost to the appellant before 25 November 2009 on a CD. The PIO is also directed to put up the list of all the defaulters giving the amounts on the website of NDMC under its Section 4 obligations. This will be done before 15 December 2009 and a compliance report will be sent to the Commission before 20 December 2009,” the Commission said in its order.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002317/5452

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/SG-10112009-10.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002317

 

Appellant                                            : Piyush Jain,

                                                            Delhi- 110032.                                                                         

 

Respondent                                                 : PK Sen

                                                            Public Information Officer & Accounts Officer

                                                            New Delhi Municipal Council

                                                            House Tax Department,

                                                            Palika Kendra, New Delhi

Comments
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback