Central Information Commission
N. Prabhakaran vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chennai Zone on 21 September, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CEXCH/A/2019/104444
N Prabhakaran ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o Commissioner of ... ितवादी /Respondent
GST & Central Excise, Chennai
South Commissionerate, 692,
MHU Complex, Nandam Chennai,
Tamilnadu.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.08.2018 FA : 03.10.2018 SA : 30.01.2019
CPIO : 28.08.2018 FAO : 01.11.2018 Hearing : 11.09.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, 692, MHU Complex, Nandam Chennai, Tamilnadu. The appellant seeking information regarding copies of Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1996-97 in respect of two employees who joined the department in 1994, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 03.10.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 01.11.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Page 1 of 3 Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Anand Kumar, Dy. Commissioner attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 01.09.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application dated 18.08.2018.
6. The respondent submitted that they have informed the appellant vide letter dated 01.11.2018 that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act because it is personal information of third party.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide their letter dated 01.11.2018 had passed a detailed order whereby they have informed the appellant that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 11(1) read with Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such Page 2 of 3 information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
दनांक / Date 11.09.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, O/o Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 692, MHU Complex, Nandam Chennai, Tamilnadu-600035.
2. N Prabhakaran, Page 3 of 3