Central Information Commission
Waseem Ahmad vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade on 8 June, 2023
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/DGOFT/A/2022/157033
Waseem Ahmad ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
CENTRAL LICENSING AREA (CLA). RTI CELL, A WING,
I P BHAWAN, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI- 110002.
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/06/2023
Date of Decision : 08/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2022
CPIO replied on : NA
First appeal filed on : 29/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of alleged denial of information by the CPIO. He further raised the following grounds in the instant Appeal-
"• I had filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 to demanding information leading to the facts on 5 exporters of Moradabad who are running their factories in the residential complex premises from day 1 . • They have opted the import & Export Code from DGFT through fake information and have created & creating pollution from manufacturing of goods which they are exporting and earning good profits from it. • As with the help of IEC Code I can get out with the DGFT department as to what value i.e amount of goods they have manufactured at the residential premises & exported to foreign countries so that native citizens can be saved from noise /air/water pollution..."2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio conference hearing despite having made request in this regard with the Registry of this bench) Respondent: Nitish Suri, Joint DGFT & FAA along with and Rajiv Bharadwaj , CPIO present in person The FAA while making his submissions before the bench stated that the Appellant has sought facts/ addresses of factories of the five averred firms/ exporters of Moradabad who are running their factories in the residential complex premises. He further added that apparently these firms have obtained import & Export Code from DGFT through fake documents / information and these factories are creating pollution from manufacturing of goods which are being exported . Since the information relates to a third party and is personal in nature; therefore, information sought has been denied to the Appellant on 18.08.2022 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. He further submitted that the said reply was also affirmed vide his order dated 23/24.11.2022.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of information more particularly the facts /addresses of the averred third party firms under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of averred third party firms by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"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 3 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 issue raised by the Appellant regarding running of factories by the said firms/ exporters in the residential complex leading to pollution of the area , is a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5