Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar Dhingra vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 30 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NITKS/A/2020/663551
Ashwani Kumar Dhingra ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of
Technology Kurukshetra, RTI
Cell, Mirzapur Part, Haryana-136119. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/09/2021
Date of Decision : 30/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20/11/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/02/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.10.2019 seeking the information/documents related to candidate(s) admitted in the M.Tech (Regular 1 Programme) on the basis of GATE Score during year 2006, 2007 and 2008, including inter alia;
(1) Provide the certified copy of M.Tech admission application form (including enclosures) of the candidate(s) admitted in the M.Tech (Regular Programme) on the basis of GATE Score in the following Departments during the year 2006, 2007 and 2008:
(a) Computer Science & Engineering
(b) Mechanical Engineering
(c) Electronics & Communication Engineering (2) Provide the certified copy of GATE Score card attached/enclosed with the M.Tech admission application form by the said admitted candidate(s) at point 1 above.
(3) Provide the certified copy of the month wise GATE scholarship amount disbursed to the M.Tech Students of Mechanical Engineering Department admitted in 2006 for the complete duration of M.Tech Programme (4) Provide the certified copy of the verification/authenticity report of the GATE score card of the M.Tech Students of Mechanical Engineering Department admitted in 2006.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: G.R Samanta ray, Joint Registrar (GA) & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no material information has been provided to him till date.
Subsequent to which the Commission apprised the Appellant that scores of other candidates pertains to their personal information disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, on which he contested that scholarship 2 to the selected candidates are paid from the public exchequer ,therefore , such information cannot be treated as personal information per se in terms of RTI Act.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 27.09.2021 and submitted that the ACPIO has provided a reply to the Appellant earlier on 15.11.2019 with an offer of an opportunity of inspection of relevant records which was further reiterated on 29.11.2019 in compliance of FAA's order dated 27.11.2019. He further submitted that however, the Appellant did not avail of the said opportunity.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant including the educational related details of other candidates pertains to personal information of said third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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) 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; GirishRamchandra 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 3 available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
However, ignoring this aspect the CPIO has erred in providing the opportunity of inspection of relevant records of averred candidates which was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking the consent of the said third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he should have sought for the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Now, since as per clause 3 of the notice of hearing issued to both the parties, the CPIO was required to serve a copy of his written submissions of 27.09.2021 sent to the Commission to the Appellant as well. Now therefore, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of the averred written submissions to the Appellant within 2 days through email from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4