Central Information Commission
Shri Aryan Rampal vs Delhi Fire Services on 13 December, 2023
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DLFSR/A/2023/650768
SHRI ARYAN RAMPAL .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o The Director, Delhi Fire
Service, GNCTD, Connaught
Place, New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07-12-2023
Date of Decision : 08-12-2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22-02-2023
CPIO replied on : 14-09-2023
First appeal filed on : 03-04-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14-09-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01-11-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the certified copy of the attendance register of Delhi Fire Service Employees from the date 20.10.2022 to 30.10.2022.1
Designation of the Following Officers.
1) Director, DFS
2) Dy. CFO, West Division, DFS
3) DO, Northwest Division, DFS
4) ADO, Roop Nagar, DFS."
The appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023. The CPIO vide its letter dated 14.09.2023, replied as under:
"It is informed that Delhi Fire Service functions under the provisions of The Delhi Fire Service Act 2007 & rules made there under. As per The Delhi Fire Service Act 2007 every fire officer shall for all purpose of the Act be deemed to be always on duty.
Further, as per decision of Hon'ble CIC dated 22.05.2023, the entire records available in this department has already been inspected by you along with one person on dated 26.05.2023 and the documents as desired have also been provided in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. No further information is available."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma, DO & PIO and Shri Nagendra Singh, ADO, DFS present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that no information was provided to him by the Respondent within stipulated time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 14.09.2023, they have informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent wrongly not provided complete information on his RTI application.2
On the other hand, the Respondent contended that factual position in the matter already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought by the Appellant on point no. 1 of the RTI application dated 22.02.2023 relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the 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 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 3 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..."
The Commission further observes that information as sought by the Appellant in his RTI application on point no. 2 is non-specific and vague and the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the Appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advise can only be provided to the Applicants if it is available on record of the public authority.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, 4 only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) The Commission further observes that there is a substantial delay in providing reply to the Appellant on his RTI application. Also, the reply given by the CPIO is not appropriate as no exemption clause was invoked by him while denying the information. Therefore, the CPIO is advised to be cautious in future and ensure that appropriate replies should be given to the RTI applicants within the stipulated time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 08-12-2023 SHRI ARYAN RAMPAL H. NO. 383, MATA WALI GALI, AZADPUR, DELHI - 110033 5