Central Information Commission
Alexander Moudiappa A vs Directorate Of Higher And Technical ... on 28 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DHTED/A/2023/647927
Alexander Moudiappa A .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Karaikal Polytechnic College,
Varichikudy South,
Puducherry - 609609 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025
Date of Decision : 28.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 25.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 19.04.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
"1.Kindly provide the copy of the requisition letter provided by Tmt. R. Lakshmi. Lecturer/IT to go abroad during the period June 2022 to February 2023.
2.Kindly provide the copy of the alternative arrangements made by Tmt. R. Lakshmi, Lecturer / IT towards conduct of practical examination to avail leave and go abroad during the period of June 2022 to February 2023
3.Kindly provide the copy of the no objection certificate provided to Tmt. R. Lakshmi, Lecturer / IT to go abroad during the period of June 2022 to February 2023.
4.Kindly provide the copy of the vigilance clearance certificate issued by Vigilance department to sanction permission to go abroad to Tmt. R. Lakshmi, Lecturer / IT during the period June 2022 to February 2023.
5.Kindly provide the copy of the permission sanction letter to go abroad to Tmt. R. Lakshmi. Lecturer / IT during the period June 2022 to February 2023.
6.Kindly provide the signed copy of the dally attendance of all the lecturers in Department of Information Technology, for the period September 2007 to February 2023.
7.Already a case filed against the HoD In charge order Issued to Tmt. R. Lakshini. Lecturer / IT by Pipmate In the year. Usually, when a case is filed, the order should be kept in hold. But still now she is acting as the HOD in charge for the department of IT. Kindly provide the copies of the rules followed by Pipmate to allow Tmt.R. Lakshmi, Lecturer / IT to continue as HOD In charge even if case is filed in high court.
8.Kindly provide the copy of the file order approval by Pipmate to allow Tmt. R. Lakshmi, Lecturer / IT to continue as HOD In charge even if case is filed in high court
9.Kindly provide the copy of the passport of Tmt .R. Lakshmi. Lecturer / IT tο submit in court for the case which is filed already.
10.Kindly provide the copies of the property returns filed by Tmt. R. Lakshmi. Lecturer/IT during the period 2007 to 2023"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.05.2023 stating as under:
"The information requested vide Sl.No. 1 to 10 (Except Sl.No. 6) has been sought for are personal in nature, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual / third party. Further, the individual, about whom the information is sought, has not consented to disclose her personal information to the individual/third party vide her letter dated 19.05.2023. A Copy of the letter received from the individual is enclosed Page 2 of 4 herewith. Moreover, in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27734 of 2012 in the case of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commissioner and others, the Supreme Court has held that if the information is not a bonafide in Public interest, such information does not qualify for disclosure under RTI Act 2005.
Regarding SI.No 6, the copy of the daily attendance for the period from September 2007 to February 2023 shall be provided by paying of Rs.732/- (Rupees seven hundred and thirty two only) (i.e) 366 pages @ Rs.2 (A4 Size) to this office on working days. Further, it is to inform that the attendance for the year 2007, 2008 and 2010 are not traceable."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.07.2023, held as under.
"In response to your first appeal received on 21.06.2023 by this office with reference to the reply furnished by the PIO-cum- HOD in Civil Engineering of this institution vide under reference 2nd cited, the replies furnished to the information sought in Sl.No.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 in your RTI application is complete and correct. Further, the information sought by you is purely personal information such as NOC to go abroad, property returns, etc. of Tmt.R.Lakshmi, Lecturer in Information Technology under 8(1)(j) and there is no larger public interest. In addition to that, the individual has given a non-consent letter to this office for disclosure of her personal information to third party/individual and she has also stated in her letter that the litigation is pending with Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras against her vide W.P.No.26405 of 2021 as 4th Respondent filed by your Daughter Tmt.A.Vinolia, W/o. Charles Vijay and so, the disclosure of further information sought about her personal information may be manipulated or tampered by the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with his representative Mr. Richard, through VC. Respondent: Mr. K. Francis, Principal-cum-FAA, attended the hearing through VC.Page 3 of 4
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of third party and accordingly he has invoked the provision of Section 11 of the RTI Act seeking consent of the third party to share her personal information with the Appellant. The concerned third party has not given her consent to share her personal information and accordingly the dissemination of information has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to explain his locus or larger public interest in seeking personal information of third party, the Appellant failed to provide a cogent reply.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the PIO has furnished appropriate reply, applying the relevant provision of RTI Act to deny third party information. Since there is no infirmity in the reply sent by the Respondent, no cause of action subsists in this case under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)