Mci Saying Information Is Third Party Information............

[drjeme]

[b]On 10/04/08 i had filed RTI for the following querry
(1)kindly provide name of profeesor ,assosiate professor and lecturer in X MEDICAL COLLEGE in different department and since how many year they are employed?
(2)kindly provide the report submitted by the MCI(MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) SURVEY TEAM TO MCI, inspection report of X MEDICAL COLLEGE.

FROM MCI i got the reply ON 15/5/08 STATNG above information is THIRD PARTY INFORMATION nd before disclosing the NOC from third party is required . mci had sent the letter to college X.AND MCI WILL LET ME KNIW THE matter in 15 day.

what should i now do.
i think college X WONT GIVE NOC.
MY ARRGUMENT mci do the inspection of medical college to maintain the standard of education which provide doctors to the nation .and this information is in public intrest.so inspection report should be made public.
and regading the name of teacher in any college usually they put the name of foculty member on notice board.so it should not suppose to require NOC from that college.

what should i do .
my plan is wait for reply fROM mci regading NOC. IF THIRD PARTY DENIES THEN I WANT TO GO FILE FIRST APPEAL.
WHAT SHOULD I DO. PLEASE GIVE ME POINT OF ARGUMENT WHICH SHOULD I MENTION IN FIRST APPEAL?
OR IS THERE ANY OTHER METHOD TO TAKLE THIS MATTER?
THANKS ALOT.

[karira]

drjeme,

Both the points are very straight forward.

1. Regarding information requested in item 1, even if the PIO has claimed that this is 3rd party information and the college objects, you can argue that names and number of years of employment can not be denied under any circumstances. The MCI has got this information on record and your rebuttal will have to be based on the objection raised by 3rd party.

2. Regarding the inspection report, there is no question of third party at all because MCI has prepared the report and it itself is the custodian of the information.

[drjeme]

should i go 4 first appeal?

[karira]

Originally Posted by drjeme

should i go 4 first appeal?

Definitely.

Before doing that, and if you have enough time to submit the First Appeal, can you visit the PIO and ask him in writing to give you a copy of the 3rd Party objections for Item No. 1. This will help you in drafting a strong First Appeal in your case.

Please remember that even if any Third Party objects to the disclosure of information, the PIO and AA cannot blindly agree to it. They have to apply their minds and pass a reasoned order explaining as to why they think that the Third Party's claims are justified.

Please see:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_29022008_62.pdf

In order to avoid any protracted discussions/arguments with the PIO, include the following in your conversation/letter to him:

As per CIC decision http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_29022008_62.pdf, the applicant has a right to get a copy of the objections filed by the third party, if any, against disclosure of the requested information:

It is to be noted that the third-party procedure to be followed under the RTI Act is governed, among others, by Section 11(1) of the Act. A public authority is required to consult the third-party, who might have provided the information in confidence to the public authority, and then make a determination about disclosure of the information especially in the context of the exemptions in Section 8(1) as spelt-out in Section 11(3) of the Act. The decision of the CPIO is to be communicated to the third-party. A reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the RTI Act makes it clear that a procedure about consulting the third-party in writing is to be followed in a matter which is covered by these sub-sections of Section 11. It is also clear that the only reason why a third-party related information cannot be disclosed to a petitioner is the fact that the third-party objects to the disclosure and that the CPIO / AA accede to those objections and decline to disclose the information to the petitioner. A decision not to disclose the information to the petitioner in view of the objections of the third-party is itself justiciable. The petitioner has every right to question the decision of the CPIO or the AA about not disclosing a third-party related information ― a right which cannot be discharged unless the full facts about the reason for objection by the third-party is disclosed to the petitioner. A petitioner cannot effectively argue his case for disclosure of an information unless he is fully apprised of the objections of the third-party including, no doubt, the decision of the CPIO / AA thereon. Disclosure of the information about the objections of the third-party is a key-element in a petitioner challenging the decision of the respondents flowing from the third-party objection. It is in the interest of justice that not only the decision of the respondents but also the basis on which that decision was made be disclosed to a petitioner. It is an admitted fact that central to the decision of the AA in reversing the order of the CPIO in this case was the objection of the third-party. The appellant herein is entitled to know as to what it was that the third-party stated before the AA that made the latter decide that the information need not be disclosed to the petitioner.
The ground urged by the AA that the requested information would harm the personal interest of the third-party is beside the point. The information requested here by appellant is not any information given by the third-party in confidence to the respondents. What he wants is disclosure of the written submission of the third-party before AA as part of a Section 11(1) proceeding before the latter, which was also the basis on which AA declined to divulge third-party information to the appellant. This is a legitimate request and cannot be withheld from a petitioner. Without this information, the appellant shall not be able to make an informed judgement about challenging the AA’s decision. Denying him the requested information will mean handicapping him in exercising his legal right. This will be contrary to the canons of natural justice.