Central Information Commission
Urmila Suthar vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 9 April, 2021
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/NAVVS/A/2019/644829
Urmila Suthar ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asst. Commissioner (Estt-III),
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, RTI Cell,
Regional Officer, Bay No. 26-27, Sector - 31-A,
Chandigarh - 160030.
CPIO,
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
RTI Cell, Phapre Bhaike, Distt.
Mansa - 151502, Punjab. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 08/04/2021
Date of Decision : 08/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/04/2019
CPIO replied on : 13/05/2019
1
First appeal filed on : 13/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 22/05/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/07/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed a RTI application (RTI NAVVS/R/2019/50343) with NVS, HQ dated 18.04.2019 seeking information on 18 points of which she received the information on points 1 to 12, 15 & 18 while for the remaining following points a new RTI registration number got generated as NAVVS/R/2019/50343/1 on 24.04.2019:-
"13. Provide a copy of the visit schedule of Mr. K.S. Guleria, Consultant NVS RO Chandigarh of his visit of different JNVs of Punjab in Month of January 2019.
14. Provide a copy of his TA/DA Bill for these visits to JNVs.
16. Provide a copy of the Report of Enquiry conducted by Mr. K. S. Guleria during his visit of 30 & 31 January 2019 at JNV Mansa.
17. Provide a copy of the minutes of Meetings of Staff & House Masters during his visit to JNV Mansa."
The CPIO furnished offline reply to the appellant on 11.05.2019 stating as under:-
"This has the reference to your RTI application bearing registration No. NAVVS/R12019/5034311 dated 18.04.2019 for providing the information from point NO 1-18 under RT1 Act, 005. In this regard, it is intimated that you have sent same RTI application to NVS HQ through RTI portal and the same has already been disposed of by MIS, Hq on dated 24.04.2019. Hence no need to reply again, the reply will be same. However the copy of the same is enclosed."
Online reply of CPIO on 13.05.2019 against point Nos. 13, 14, 16 & 17 stated as under:-
Reply:-"Similar RTI application has already been disposed of by NVS, HQ dated 24.04.2019. The copy of the same is enclosed. Hence no need to reply on same point again."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2019 on the following grounds:2
"I filed an RTI NAVVS/R/2019/50343 bearing 18 points to get information. NVS HQ provided the reply for Point No. 1 to 12, 15 & 18 only. A new RTI got filed by the system with registration No. NAVVS/R/2019/50343/1 on 24.04.2019 with my previous RTI Point No. 13, 14, 16 & 17 only.(Copy Attached) But today I received the reply from the PIO NVS RO Chandigarh through portal wide scanned letter No. 3-27(742/742)/RTI/NVS/RO/CHD/2018/666 dated 13.05.2019 that the same RTI has been replied on 24.04.2019 on the portal by NVS HQ. Hence is no need to reply again. (Copy of this letter is attached) The PIO NVS RO Chandigarh has provided misleading/False information to the Four points of RTI Registration No. NAVVS/R/2019/50343/1 hence violating the rules of RTI Act. It is further requested to provide the information for the Four points of RTI Registration No. NAVVS/R/2019/50343/1 and Action should be initiated against the concerned PIO NVS RO Chandigarh for the violation of the rules of RTI."
FAA's order dated 22.05.2019 provided the information on point no.13 and denied the information for point no. 14 & 16 under Section 8(1)(e), (j) and (h) of the RTI Act, while for point no. 17, directed Principal-Cum-PIO JNV Mansa (Punjab) to provide the required information if available.
In compliance with FAA's order, CPIO, Principal-Cum-PIO JNV Mansa (Punjab) on 03.06.2019 furnished the reply informing the appellant that requisite information is not available in this office.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of the desired information on points no. 16 & 17, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondents: Represented by Rakesh Sinha, Asstt. Commissioner (Admn.) & CPIO present through audio conference.3
At the outset, the Commission remarked that the Appellant in her instant second appeal expressed her dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply in response to points no. 16 & 17 of RTI application dated 18.04.2019.
CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply along with available information has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.05.2019. In response to point no. 16 of RTI application, he submitted that the enquiry report contains the statement/deposition of the students taken during investigation and also personal details of the staff which cannot be disclosed to the Appellant in view of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. On point no. 17 of RTI application, it has been intimated to the Appellant that no such records are available in their office.
The CPIO apprised the Commission that the Appellant has filed the instant RTI application on behalf of her husband who was working as a teacher at JNV and a charge sheet was issued to him for the alleged unrest of the students for which the averred investigation was conducted.
Decision The Commission having heard the submissions of the CPIO as well as from a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information as sought for at point no. 16 of the RTI application by the FAA citing the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be called into question as the same pertains to a third party, disclosure of which may result in unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the said third party and as such stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
In the absence of the Appellant to plead her case or contest the CPIO's submissions regarding the information sought for at point no. 16 of the RTI Application being pertaining to her husband, the Commission is not inclined to 4 explore this aspect of the case vis-à-vis Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Further, an appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO against point no. 17 of the RTI application.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) 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