Central Information Commission
Terence Stephen Nazareth vs Central Information Commission on 31 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000351
Dated 31.03.2017
Appellant : Dr. Terence Stephen Nazareth,
Cinthyandra 1st Floor,
65 Gokhale Road (North)
Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi-110066.
Date of Hearing : 31.03.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application dated : 19.03.2015
CPIO' reply dated : 01.04.2015/29.04.2015
First appeal dated : 11.05.2015
Second Appeal dated : 08.09.2015
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking information on three points pertaining to qualifications and posts held by some CPIOs of CIC, emails sent to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar on [email protected] after 08.03.2014.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIOs concerned. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIOs to provide the information sought by him.
CIC/SB/A/2015/000351 Page1 Hearing:
3. The appellant Dr. Terence Stephen Nazareth attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri A.K. Sharma, CPIO, CIC was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information on point no. 1(a) of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the respondent as information pertaining to the year of qualification and the medium of instruction has not been provided to him. The appellant further submitted that no information on point nos. 2(f) and 2(h) of the RTI application has been provided to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application submitted that information as per available record has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 29.04.2015. The respondent in respect of point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI application submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 24.03.2017 that no information is available with JS (MoRE) Section of CIC.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply provided in response to point nos. 1(a), 2(f) and 2(h) of the RTI application. The Commission further observes that information on point no.1 (a) with regard to the year of qualification and medium of instruction is personal information of third parties, disclosure of which will not serve any larger public interest. Hence, the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, with regard to point no. 2(h) of the RTI application, observes that information sought is with regard to the emails sent by the appellant to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar. However, since Shri Shreyaskar was released from the Commission, the information sought relates to a third party. The Commission also observes that as per proviso to Section 11 of the RTI Act, disclosure of third party information can only be CIC/SB/A/2015/000351 Page2 allowed if the public interest outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party. Hence, the information sought on point no. 2(h) of the RTI application cannot be divulged to the appellant. The Commission, with regard to point no. 2(f) of the RTI application, agrees with the appellant that no information has been provided to him by Shri A.K. Gehlot, the then CPIO and JS(MoRE), CIC. In view of this, the Commission directs Shri A.K. Gehlot, JS(MoRE), CIC to provide information on point no. 2(f) of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2015/000351 Page3