Respondent: Information in public domain has already been provided while denying the remaining information as the appellant is not the owner of the subject property - CIC: Information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; No public interest

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“This application has been written to ask for the provision of the following documents and inspection of file.

1. Certified copy and inspection of the BPC agenda and other documents in r/o P.No. WZ-66 at Kh.No.26/4/2/2, Khata Khatoni No. 18/18 village Keshopur, Manohar Nagar, New Delhi.

2. A copy of sanctioned site plan of plot WZ-66 at Kh. No.26/4/2/2, Khata Khatoni No. 18/18 village Keshopur, Manohar Nagar, New Delhi.”

2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:

“1. Now-a-days, all type of building plans in the Municipal jurisdiction of MCD in plotted development (year 2016 onwards) are being entertained through Online System under Ease of Doing Business, as per the prevailing norms of Unified Building Bye Laws-2016 / Master Plan of Delhi-2021 and no file is accepted & maintained in hard file. Further, for the convenience / awareness of general public / professionals / Department etc., the details of building plans released Online can be viewed on public domain : www.mcdonline.nic.in (Link Online services - Ease of Doing Business). Further, sanctioned building plan is an intellectual property of the Architect / private documents of the owner and the same cannot be provided a 3rd party. Hence, applicant is required to submit copy of ownership documents, authority letter from the owner with identity proof in his favour. Thereafter, copies of the relevant documents shall be provided on payment of requisite charges under the provisions of RTI Act2005. 2. As per point No.1 above.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Rahul Verma, AE (Building)-cum-APIO, MCD, Hqr. Present in person.

5. The respondent apprised the Commission at the outset that the appellant has no locus standi to seek details of subject property as it relates to third-party and he is not the owner of that property. Despite this, reply has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2023 informing him that “the details of building plans released Online can be viewed on public domain: www.mcdonline.nic.in (Link Online services -Ease of Doing Business). Further, sanctioned building plan is an intellectual property of the Architect/private documents of the owner and the same cannot be provided a 3rd party. Hence, applicant is required to submit copy of ownership documents, authority letter from the owner with identity proof in his favour. Thereafter, copies of the relevant documents shall be provided on payment of requisite charges under the provisions of RTI Act-2005.”

Decision:

6. The Commission, after adverting to facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his above-mentioned RTI application. On the other hand, the respondent clarified that information which was in public domain has already been told him with the URL and the link while denying the remaining information to the appellant as he is not the owner of the subject property.

7. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that part information denied to the Appellant pertains to third party where his locus standi is not established with any supporting documents which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.

8. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”

9. Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third party. Moreover, the appellant did not appear during hearing to contest his case or controvert the averment of the Respondent. Admissible information has already been disclosed to the appellant.

10. Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: K P Singh, Advocate v. Office of the Executive Engineer (Building) HQ, MCD in CIC/MCDND/A/2024/100605; Date of Decision : 30.04.2025