Central Information Commission
Chandranshu Mehta vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 22 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SANAK/A/2023/122706.
Shri Chandranshu Mehta. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Sangeet Natak Akademi.
Date of Hearing : 16.07.2024
Date of Decision : 18.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.02.2023
PIO replied on : 02.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 09.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 24.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Request for arranging inspection of file/service file in relation to appointment of Sh. M. C. Aravindakshan, Consultant u/s 2 (j) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is hereby also requested that may kindly provide certified copies of documents/records which the appellant mention after inspection u/s 2 (j) (ii).
2. Request for arranging inspection of file/service file in relation to appointment of Shri Yatindra Mishra, Editor u/s 2 (j) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is hereby also requested that may kindly provide certified copies of documents/records which the appellant mention after inspection u/s 2 (j)
(ii).
3. Request for arranging inspection of file/service file in relation to appointment of Shri Amar Singh, Consultant u/s 2 (j) (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, it is hereby also requested that may kindly provide certified copies of documents/records which the appellant mention after inspection u/s 2 (j)
(ii).
4. Request for arranging inspection of file/service file in relation to appointment of Shri Subhash Dutta, Audit Officer u/s 2 (j) (1) of the RTI Act, Page 1 of 5 2005. Further, it is hereby also requested that may kindly provide certified copies of documents/records which the appellant mention after inspection u/s 2 (j) (ii).
5. Request for arranging inspection of file/service file in relation to appointment of Shri Vipin Verma, Consultant (Fol) u/s 2 (j) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is hereby also requested that may kindly provide certified copies of documents/records which the appellant mention after inspection u/s 2 (j) (ii)."
The CPIO, DS, Sangeet Natak Akademi vide letter dated 02.03.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Administration Section of the Akademi has not yet provided the relevant file (s); as soon as we receive it, you will be intimated.
2.to 5. In this regard, the inspection on point no 2 to 5 had been done on 01.03.2023 at 12:30 p.m. The copies of selected documents sought at sl. no. 2 to 5, contains in total 171 pages. You are requested to kindly deposit total amount of Rs.342/-i.e. Rs 2 per page, as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Please find the banking details of SNA which is mentioned below. Account No : 18250*******3 Secretary, Sangeet Natak Akademi, New Delhi IFSC Code : UCBA000XXXX BANK NAME Ferozeshah Road : UCO Bank"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.04.2023 stated as under:-
"The matter is remanded to CPIO with a direction to provide the information/inspection on point no. 1 of RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. He shall pass an order within a period of 15 days from receipt of this order."
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO furnished reply dated 27.04.2023 as under :
After detail checking of record, it is found that only one record available in the Account Section i.e., the payment voucher (attached herewith) which has been obtained from the Account Section Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Tej Swaroop Trivedi, Assistant Director/CPIO and Mr. Deepak Joshi, Assistant- participated in the hearing.Page 2 of 5
The Appellant was heard through audio-conference and requested for adjournment of his 15 cases listed for hearing on account of medical exigency. He also contended that he had requested the Registry to send him the e-files since he did not have the complete files.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the RTI Applicant. They stated that the Appellant is their ex-employee, and he was removed from service on the direction of court. They averred that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications and has clogged the system. They averred that the complete details related to the appointment of the employees as sought in the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant and the Appellant has also inspected the records.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission observes the Appellant had sought adjournment of hearing on medical grounds vide his email dated 15.07.2024, referring to discharge certificate and advocate affidavit, which were not attached with the aforementioned email. The Appellant was duly informed by the Deputy Registrar of the Registry vide email dated 15.07.2024, inter-alia that: " ..Your postponement of hearings of your second appeals/complaints listed on 16.07.2024 can not be acceded to. You may submit your submissions so that your cases may be decided on merit. You can also attend the hearings through audio conference. Please keep your phone free at the time of hearings..."
The email correspondences exchanged between the Registry of this Bench and the Appellant reveals that all possible assistance in the form of sending his own e-files, extending the option of hearing through audio conference and even the option of filing his written submission were provided to the Appellant by the Commission. However, the Appellant refused to accept any of options given to him. Commission notes that, the notice of hearing for the instant case was issued on 20th June 2024 and the Appellant has requested for adjournment of his 15 cases at this late stage which could not be entertained due to pendency of cases in the Commission. However, ample assistance was made available to the Appellant to prevent any wastage of time and ensure timely adjudication of the matter.
During the audio conference, the Appellant refused to state his contentions with respect to the instant case and the ground for filing instant Second Appeal. Commission is also not in receipt of any written submission from the Appellant relating to the facts and merits of the case.
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Commission observes that the PIO has furnished the third-party information and has not even followed the procedure of serving a notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act, to the third party for seeking objections whether such information shall be disclosed or not. Commission observes that the information sought by Page 3 of 5 the Appellant in the instant RTI Application qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...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 available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
In view of foregoing, Commission cautions the present PIO to remain extremely careful in future and acquaint himself well with the RTI Act, 2005 so that such lapses do not recur. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)