Central Information Commission
Ramesh vs Department Of Animal Husbandry And ... on 22 May, 2023
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/DAHDD/A/2022/649167
Ramesh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Cattle Breeding Farm,
RTI Cell, Alamadhi,
PO-Edapalayam, 52, Via
Redhills, Chennai-600052,
Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/05/2023
Date of Decision : 18/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 07/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/07/2022
Second Appeal dated : 06/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2022 seeking the following information:1
"My grandmother C. Yeshoda was worked as Farm Attendant Cum Chowkidar at Central Cattle Breading Farm from 07.09.1989 and she voluntarily retired from service on 13.12.2007 and she died on 22.09.2010 My grandmother was illiterate, and she doesn't know writing and she was putting her thumb impression in all records. During her lifetime some anti-social elements impersonated my grandmother and transfer her property and in the said document the impersonated person put signature of my grandmother, hence my grandmother attendance and other service records are required to show that she is thump impression person. I hereby enclose a copy of her pension book for your reference.
I request following information under Right to Information Act 2005 i. Please provide the attendance and other service records of C. Yeshoda."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.06.2022 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2022. FAA's order, if any, dated 18.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....I required information about my own grandmother, who was died 22.09.2010. My grandmother C. Yeshoda was worked as Farm Attendant Cum Chowkidar at Central Cattle Breading Farm from 07.09.1989 and she voluntarily retired from service on 13.12.2OO7 and she died on 22.O9.2O10 My grandmother was illiterate, and she doesn't know writing and she was putting her thumb impression in all records. During her lifetime some anti-social elements impersonated my grandmother and transfer her property and in the said document the impersonated person put signature of my grandmother, hence my grandmother attendance and other service records are required, to show that she is thump impression person i. please provide the attendance and other service records of C.Yeshoda...."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Assisted by Muthukumar present through video-conference. Respondent: Dr Damodaran, Director & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant reiterated the contents of instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and further insisted for relief on the plea that he is the grand son of late Mrs Yeshoda who had worked as Farm Attendant Cum Chowkidar at the Respondent and had voluntarily retired on 13.12.2007 and passed away on 22.09.2010 . He went on to add that his late grandmother was illiterate, and she did not know how to write and was putting her thumb impression in all records. In fact, some anti-social elements impersonated his grandmother and transferred her property and put signature of his grandmother. Hence his grandmother attendance and other service records are required to show that she is thumb impression person.
Lastly, he clarified that his mother was the only daughter of his grandmother and that he is therefore, the rightful grandson of Mrs Yeshoda.
The CPIO relying on his written submissions dated 15.05.2023 reiterated their denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. He further submitted that as per their office records/ service book , grandmother of the Appellant took VRS and that her signatures as also her thumb impressions are available in the service file. Therefore, the plea of Appellant that deceased lady only endorsed her thumb impression is not acceptable. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide a copy of relevant information to the Appellant upon receipt of his claim to be the legal heir of his late grandmother.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of service records pertaining to his late grandmother by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of the third party which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 3 xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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; Girish Ramchandra 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 available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, considering the contentions of Appellant that he is the legal heir of the third party, he is advised to file relevant document in support of his claim. Upon receipt of the said relevant documents to satisfy the cause of action of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide readily available relevant information which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant.
4The Appellant is allowed a window of 30 days to provide the relevant documents to the CPIO and in case of non-receipt of the same by the CPIO within the said time period, the case will be treated as closed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5