Central Information Commission
R Lal Raj vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 22 November, 2022
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/CCACH/A/2021/154789
R Lal Raj ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Office(Hqrs.),
O/oPr. CIT ReFAC, AU-4, Chennai,
RTI Cell, Room No. 702, 7th Floor,
Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, 121,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai, Tamilnadu-600034. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/11/2022
Date of Decision : 21/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/07/2021 & 12/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 23/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.07.2021 seeking information regarding an inspector with the IT department , inter alia, the details of his Course/Duration or Attendance record of his office work in the year of 2018 January to 2020 December :
".........Mr. JAGMOHAN MEENA S/O KISHAN LAL MEENA RESIDING AT KALAKHO (AMBARI) POST, JAGRAMPURA PATTI -VILLAGE, SIKRAI- TEHSIL, DAUSA-1
DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN -STATE is charged with the offence under sec.143, 323, 341, 452, 379, 504 of IPC as per FIR Crime no. 186/2020 SIKANDRA-THANA, DAUSA- DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN-STATE dated on 27/05/2020. His defense was that at the time of committing the above said offence he was engaged at your office from the year of 2018 to 2020. And calming the protection that he is a government servant.
Hence, I am requesting you to provide me his Course/Duration or Attendance record of his office work in the year of 2018 January to 2020 December for further proceeding of the case. Along with this application I am enclosing the FIR copy of the above said crime for your personal reference."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 13.07.2021 as under:-
"...........Shri Jagmohan Meena is an Inspector working in the 0/o ITO, ReFAC, AU-4(2)(3), Chennai. The petition was accompanied by Court Fee stamp for Rs.10 and the petition was admitted. After examination of information request and the accompanying details, the order is passed as under.
As per the annexure to the above mentioned RTI petition, Shri Jagmohan Meena had been charged with offences u/s 143, 323, 341, 452, 379 and 504 of IPC,1860 under FIR no.0186 of May 2020 filed in PS Sikandara of District Dausa, Rajasthan.
xxx It could be seen from the above that Shri Jagmohan Meena has been charged with offences of (1) unlawful assembly, (2) causing hurt voluntarily, (3) wrongful restraint, (4) house trespass, after preparing to cause hurt or assaulting (5) theft, and (6) Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
Information sought for under the RTI Act,2005 is to be revealed only when there is public interest involved in the disclosure. In the instant case, there is no mention by the applicant about any public interest being involved. The information about attendance and employment etc, as sought for is purely personal in nature. Since personal information is exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and its linkage with any public interest has not been clearly detailed, the undersigned is not inclined to entertain this application. Hence, the RTI application stands disposed of this day the 13th of July 2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2021. FAA's order dated 19.08.2021 dismissed the First Appeal of the Appellant with the following observations:-
"...........The petition of the appellant was disposed of by the CPIO after examining the details of FIR copies submitted by the applicant wherein Shri 2 Jagmohan Meena had been charged with offences u/s 143, 323, 341, 452, 379 and 504 of IPC, 1860 under FIR No.0186 of May 2020 filed in PS: Sikandara of District Dausa, Rajasthan. The CPIO had examined these sections of the Indian Penal Code and expressed her understanding that the information about attendance and employment, as sought by the applicant, constitutes personal information of Shri Jaginohan Meena and that no public interest was involved. Accordingly, the request for information was rejected by the CPIO.
As part of the submission made in his email dt. 04.08.2021 the appellant has enclosed copy of FIR no. 0280 dt: 31.07.2020 claiming involvement of public interest in the information sought for. This FIR was not before the CPIO. As per this FIR Shri Jagmohan Meena had been charged with offences u/s 376 and 420 of1PC, 1860 filed in PS: Sikandara of District Dausa, Rajasthan. Sections 376 and 420 of IPC, 1860, respectively, deal with `punishment for rape' and `cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property'.
In this connection, a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, Rajasthan was sent seeking full details and present status in respect of both the FIRs i.e., Nos 0186/27.05.2020 and 0280/31.07.2020 filed against Shri. Jagmohan Meena. A report in this regard was received from the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, Rajasthan which reads as below(copy annexed as part of this order) S Police Station FIR No. with Under Section Result No. date
1. Ps. Sikandra 186/2020 date 143, 323, 341, Jagmohan is not 27.05.20 452, 379, 504 involved in this case.
IPC His name is separated. Rest 1-Subedar Meena, 2.Ranjeet Meena 3.Rajkumar Meena Chatman submitted vide charge sheet no.189/2020 dated 30.06.2020 and same charge sheet submitted to mint court Mimi clause on 04.07.2020 2. Ps. Sikandra 280/2020 date 376, 420 IPC This case is false in 31.07.2020 respect of Jagmohan, Final report of this case vide final report no. 500/2020 dated 31.12.2020 is 3 submitted to mjm court-Sikarai dist- dausa dated 04.01.2021
From the above, it is evident that in both the complaints filed in FIR Nos 0186/27.05.2020 and 0280/31.07.2020, Shri. Jagmohan Meena is not involved and the final reports have been submitted to the MJM Court, Sikrai, Dausa on 04.07.2020 and 04.01.2021 respectively. Hence, the linkage of the personal information Of Shri Jagmohan Meena relating to his attendance record with any issue of public interest has not been established. It is, accordingly, held that there is no error in the order of the CPIO dt. 13.07.2021 and the appeal against thief order is dismissed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Juveria present through video-conference. Respondent: J Praveen, JCIT, AU- 4(1) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed Appellant's dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO.
In response to it, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards the averred reply supplemented with the order passed by the FAA and in compliance to it further information furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.10.2021.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the CPIO had appropriately denied the attendance related records of a third party officer to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, despite the fact that the information belongs to a third party , the CPIO/FAA had gone out of their ways to ascertain the position from the concerned authorities from the Government of Rajasthan and accordingly , informed the Appellant the complete status of the case.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:4
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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..."
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant of a larger public interest subsisting in the matter keeping in view of a catena of 5 judgments of the superior Courts as under with respect to the aspect of larger public interest:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy.Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:6
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no further relief can be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7