Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pawan Kumar Saluja vs Department Of Women And Child ... on 11 January, 2021

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                              के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/DOWCD/A/2018/169946

PAWAN KUMAR SALUJA                                      .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम
 PIO,
 Public Information Officer,
 Dy. Director (FAS Branch), Department of Women,
 & Child development (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
 Ist Floor, Maharana Pratap I.S.B.T. Building,
 Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.

                                                        ...प्रनर्वािीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   20.06.2018
  CPIO replied on                   :   16.07.2018
  First appeal filed on             :   14.08.2018
  First Appellate Authority order   :   30.08.2018
  Second Appeal dated               :   19.11.2018
  Date of Hearing                   :   11.01.2021
  Date of Decision                  :   11.01.2021

             lwpuk vk;qDr               :       Jh हीरालाल सामररया
       INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                    Shri Heeralal Samariya

 Information sought

:

The Appellant sought information through 05 points, related to Delhi widow's pension. The appellant seeking whether income of the major children of the widow concerned who are living together with her, is also counted in her own annual income from all sources. What action lies against any such beneficiary of the widow pension scheme who has falsely shown her income from all sources less than rupees one lac per annum, provide the complete information as is available on the website of the department in CD/compact disc and complete details as name, designation official address and official contact number of the FAA, under the RTI Act, 2005 and the matter related to thereon.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided desired information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present on phone Respondent: Shivani Kapoor Baveja, Nodal Officer (RTI), Rep of PIO, Dy. Director (FAS Branch), Department of Women, & Child development (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Ist Floor, Maharana Pratap I.S.B.T. Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further stated that information sought at para 4 of the instant RTI Application pertained to the details of the beneficiaries of the widow pension scheme, and same was sought in a CD format as available on their website. He further justified that said information as available on their website ran into more than 15,000 pages, thus making it difficult for him to gather the specific information, therefore he requested the Respondent Authority to provide the relevant information in a CD format. He furthermore submitted that he has already paid the requisite fees of Rs. 50/- in respect of the same.

Rep. of the PIO submitted that information sought by the Appellant pertains to the third-party information disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy. She further submitted that even before the available information on the website as averred by the Appellant was limited and was later removed by the department on similar grounds as stated above and thus, Appellant was denied the said information on similar ground on 16.07.2018.

Appellant interjected and quoted a judgement of CIC dated 14.07.2009 decision no. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 stating that Commission in its previous judgement had directed the Respondent Authority to provide the relevant information in a specific format despite the availability of the same in the public domain. He further requested the Commission to follow the same ratio and direct the respondent Authority and provide the same once again.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing upholds the submission of the Rep. of the PIO. Further, Page 2 of 4 CIC/DOWCD/A/2018/169946 Commission observes that Appellant has quoted the Judgement of the Commission dated 14.07.2009 in decision no. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702/4128 and requested for disclosure of the said information in regards of the same. However, Commission rejects the said plea of the Appellant on the ground that ratio of said judgement would hold water when the information sought was disclosable, since the relevant information sought pertains to the third party information, thus same cannot be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also no larger public interest is involved in the matter, thus, PIO has appropriately denied the relevant information sought. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to 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, 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 present case upholds the submission of the Rep. of the PIO with regard to denial of information sought in the instant RTI Application on para 4 and rejects the argument of the Appellant in respect of the same.

Nonetheless, Commission takes into account the submission of the Appellant stating that he has submitted the fees of Rs. 50/- for the provision of the information in a CD format. Therefore, Commission directs the PIO to refund the additional fees sought for providing information on para 4 of the RTI Application to the Appellant through appropriate mode within 15 days from the receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

HeeralalSamariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4