Central Information Commission
Ravi Kumar Bhatia vs S.V. National Institute Of Technology, ... on 30 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/SNITS/C/2018/614195/01515
File no.: CIC/SNITS/C/2018/614195
In the matter of:
Ravi Kumar Bhatia
...Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer/ RTI Cell,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT),
Ichchhanath, Surat - 395 007, Gujarat
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 12/03/2018 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 15/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 29/08/2019 Date of Decision : 29/08/2019 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC
Respondent: Dr H.B Mehta, Associate Professor and CPIO; Shri A.K Shah, Associate Professor and the then CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Details about PHD Students, whose Research Progress Seminar (RPS) are missed either under intimation or not, during the period 2007 onwards may be 1 provided. Also provide the copies of applications submitted by these students, from all the departments of SVNIT.
2. List of the students with name, registration no. and copy of affidavit submitted to the respective department related to the missed RPS.
Grounds for Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant relied on the proviso to Sec 8(1) which reads as follows: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." The CPIO submitted that prima facie the information sought was related to personal information of the third parties. Moreover, according to him there is no larger public interest in disclosure of such information. Hence he claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Observation:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information of third parties i.e. the PHD scholars, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information, within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. In so far as his claim regarding the information not denied to Parliament or State Legislature is concerned, besides quoting the provision, he did not provide any material to substantiate his claim that the said information had been ever sought by the either house of Parliament or State Legislature.2
File no.: CIC/SNITS/C/2018/614195 Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3