Copy of NOC issued by Railways in respect of some projects & the status of compliance was denied due to third party objection - Appellant: any NOC is a public document and should be accessible to public - CIC: provide information in public interest
17 Apr, 2014Copy of NOC issued by Railways in respect of some projects and the status of compliance was denied stating that third party had objected to disclose - Appellant: any NOC given by any public authority whether it pertained to private or public company, the document becomes public document and should be accessible to public - CIC: information sought by the appellant was in public interest, provide it
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 16.08.2012 under the RTI Act seeking copy of NOC issued by Railways for some projects, details of action taken against the developer, copy of inspection report, copy of undertaking, etc. CPIO responded on 19.10.2012. Appellant filed appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 16.10.2012. Copy of FAA is not enclosed. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 12.11.2012.
Hearing
2. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he was seeking copy of NOC issued by Railways in respect of some projects and the status of compliance.
3. Appellant stated that there were various illegal constructions in the proximity of the lands of railways in Mumbai. Appellant stated that in this light he sought the information in his RTI application.
4. Appellant stated that the CPIO did not reply to his RTI application. Appellant stated that only after he filed appeal the respondent sent a reply stating that the information sought by him was third party information.
5. Appellant stated that the information sought by him was in public interest. Appellant stated that any NOC given by any public authority whether it pertained to private or public company, the document becomes public document and should be accessible to public.
6. Appellant stated that he had obtained similar information from the other railway circles.
7. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was third party information and accordingly they had initiated action under section 11 of the Act. Respondent stated that the third party had written to the respondent not to disclose the information sought by the appellant. Respondent stated that the information received by the appellant from other railway circles pertained to government projects, but this was a private project.
8. It emerged from the hearing that the information sought by the appellant was in public interest. Therefore, information should be provided to the appellant. There is no legal reason to deny the information to the appellant. This takes into account also that any conditions imposed in the grant of an NOC is a matter of public interest in a matter such as this where there is a legal requirement for a public authority like the railways to issue an NOC.
Decision
9. Respondent is directed to provided to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy v. Central Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003689/VS/06487