Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Tapu Ghosh vs Niper, Guwahati on 13 February, 2023

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/NIPGU/A/2022/628039

 Tapu Ghosh                                          .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education &
 Research-(NIPER-Guwahati) (Min. of Chemicals &
 Fertilizers), Sila Katamur (Halugurisuk),
 Post Office-Changsari, District-Kamrup-781101
 (Assam).

                                                       ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   11.03.2022
  CPIO replied on                   :   08.04.2022
  First appeal filed on             :   12.04.2022
  First Appellate Authority order   :   29.04.2022
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   25.05.2022
  Date of Hearing                   :   07.02.2023
  Date of Decision                  :   07.02.2023


                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya

  Information sought

:

The Appellant sought following information:

• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 08.04.2022, as under:

• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 12.04.2022 .

• The FAA vide order dated 29.04.2022 held as under:

• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 16.01.2023.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present Page 4 of 6 Respondent: N.K Dheerendra Patnaik (NIPER) (CPIO) (Guwahati) Appellant has not received relevant information. He further submitted that he has not received the information on the point no (d) and (e) of the above RTI application. He further inform the Commission that in an earlier RTI application the CPIO has furnished the OMR sheet of other candidate, therefore the CPIO cannot claim the exemption of 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in furnishing the information.

Upon Commissions instance, the CPIO submitted that the information sought in point d and e of the RTI application is denied in 8(1)(j) of the RTI act and as regards to the other points reply has been furnished with all annexures. He further stated that a written submission enumerating all the details has been submitted for the perusal of the Commission on 16.01.2023. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 16.01.2023, to the Appellant/ Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that point-wise reply has been given to appellant. Furthermore, appellant has sought information in point no (d) and (e) pertains to other candidates which qualifies as a third party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, further no larger public interest has been invoked by him . In view of this, 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, Page 5 of 6 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. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case and deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6