Central Information Commission
Kamla Kant Pankaj vs Indian Air Force on 30 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/AIRIN/A/2024/117652/IAIRF
Kamla Kant Pankaj .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Wing Commander,
AIR HQ (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg,
New Delhi -110106
Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026
Date of Decision : 30.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 31.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.04.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 29.05.2024
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"कृ पया अवगत कराव क मेरे ारा दनांक 27.10.2023 को िनबंिधत डाक के मा य से सेवा िनवृत वायु सेना कम िवजय कु मार िपता- ी रामनंदन राय स वस नं0-659856-T (SPL) CPL के संबंध म आवेदन ेिशत क गई थी, छाया ित संल सूिचत करे क उ वायु सेना कम का पशन िजस बक या पो टऑ फस के मां य से भुगतान क जाती है। उसका खाता सं० एवं संबंिधत शाखा का नाम पता को उप बध करावे ता क म माननीय यायालय से इस संबंध म समुिचत याय ा कर सकू ।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.01.2024 stating as under:
"Information sought vide this para is 'personal information', related to third party, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual. Hence, the same is exempted under Sec 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as amended vide Para 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.04.2024 stated as under:
" I being the First Appellate Authority having examined the submission/ contention in the appeal vis-à-vis the reply given by the CPIO and material placed before me for scrutiny, observe that the appellant vide his RTI application sought pension account details pertaining to 659856- T Ex Cpl Vijay Kumar. Since, the information sought was personal information related to third party, it was rightly denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the instant appeal, the appellant has repeated his request. It is pertinent to mention that CPIO is expected to function within the ambit of RTI Act and since the information sought is personal information of a third party it cannot be Page 2 of 4 provided. Further, with regard to hearing in person for the first appeal, it is apprised that at present there is no such provision.
The aforesaid decision is supported by the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vijay Prakash V/s Uol WP(C) No. 803/2009), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be lifted or disturbed."
Now therefore, in the light of above mentioned facts and other material available on record I, as Appellate Authority, dispose of the appeal, submitted by Shri Kamala Kant Pankaj."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Kamla Kant Pankaj Appellant through Advocate Abhay Kumar Thakur Respondent: GP Capt. P.K. Jha, CPIO
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that information has not been provided by the respondent. He alleged that the CPIO has not invoked provisions of section 11(1) of the RTI Act while denying the sought information by invoking section 8(1)(j). He also stated that the information has been sought in the matter of cheque bouncing case filed by the appellant against the person for which, information has been sought in the instant matter.
7. The respondent while defending their case, inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the pension account details of 659856-T Ex Cpl Vijay Kumar. It was submitted that the information sought constitutes personal information relating to a third party and, therefore, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is not applicable in the present case, as the CPIO do not intend to disclose any third-party information.
Page 3 of 4Decision:
8. The Commission, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties, and upon perusal of the records, agrees with the respondent CPIO that the information sought by the appellant pertains to a third party. The appellant in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that the denial of information by the respondent under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is justified. Since no disclosure of third -party information is intended by the respondent, the provisions of section 11(1) of the RTI Act are not attracted.
With the above observations, the instant appeal is disposed of.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 30.01.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Col Prabhat Kumar) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Wing Commander, AIR HQ (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110106 (2) Shri Kamla Kant Pankaj Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)