Water connection application and related information was sought - PIO: Documents submitted by third party for water connection, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exempt u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Denial upheld

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Mrs. Nagasundari @ Nancy residing at the above address. She constructed a new house and obtained a new water connection in the above said address.

Here by we request your good office to provide the following details. We will bear the cost for the following document.

1. Water application submitted date.

2. Copy of Water application

3. Copy of supporting document

4. Water connection number”

2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.01.2024 stating as under:

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.02.2024, upheld the reply of PIO.

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: C. Vassou, Executive Engineer, appeared through video conference.

5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought related to documents submitted by third party namely Mrs. Nagasundari for water connection, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant had also failed to demonstrate any relationship with Mrs. Nagasundari and also failed to establish any overriding public interest that would justify the disclosure of third-party information under the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the 3rd person namely Mrs. Nagasundari who was entitled to preserve her privacy. The Appellant in his RTI application as well as in the first appeal failed to bring out any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information which the Respondent had denied and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

7. The Appellant neither appeared before the Commission nor submitted any written justification to establish any public interest in the matter. In the absence of such justification and keeping in view the privacy rights of third parties, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the Respondent Authority.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rajendran v. Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Division, Subbaiah Salai, Puducherry; CIC/PWDEP/A/2024/605665; Date of Decision : 23.05.2025