Central Information Commission
S Nivedha vs Southern Railway on 23 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SORLY/A/2023/125650
S Nivedha .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Southern Railway, Divisional
Office, Personnel Branch,
Tiruchchirappalli Division,
Tiruchchirappalli - 620001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2024
Date of Decision : 22.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.05.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"The above said Mr. J.Balaji purchased a house property at Kilakurichi, Thiruverumbur Taluk for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) under Document No.2598/2022 at Sub Registrar Office, Thiruverumbur.
Has he got any permission from the Department to purchase a property for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only).
I am being his sister, I want to know that."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.05.2023 stating as under:
"Your application submitted under RTI Act has been examined and it is informed that the information sought relates to third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and is exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8 (1) J of the RTI Act, especially when no larger Public interest is mentioned and adduced with evidence by your original application"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.06.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sh. V. Swaminathan, Sr. DPO-cum-CPIO, TP J present through video-conference.
Appellant raised her arguments in the instant Appeal on the following lines:Page 2 of 5
"I am sister of Mr. J. Balaji, Loco Pilot Ticket TM.6989. I made application to the Public Information Officer regarding permission to purchase property by my brother. Since it is a Joint Family Property I filed a suit for partition against my brother O.S. No.1192/2022 on the file of the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The case is posted to 09.06.2023.
2. I want that particular to furnish before the Hon'ble court. This is a public record of an employee; this is not his personal information as mentioned by the P.I.O. as per Section 8 1(J) of R.T.I. Act.
3. This information will not affect the personal right of a person. A citizen is bound to disclose his properties. Bearing a Railway employee. I am not a third party, I am sister of the said employee."
A written submission dated 13.08.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below:
"Ms. S. Nivedha, claiming to be the sister of Shri. J. Balaji, Loco Pilot(PF No.:
15629803576) has sought information under RTI Act, 2005 as to whether Shri. J. Balaji got departmental permission to purchase a property vide her letter received at this office on 22.05.2023. As there was no larger public interest in the information sought by the applicant, a reply to that effect was given by this office on 23.05.2023. Further, the applicant in her first appeal received on 29.05.2023 informed that she has requested for the information to furnish before the Honourable Court to settle a personal family matter. The Appellate authority was also fully satisfied with the stand taken by CPIO that there exists no larger public interest and disposed the appeal with no further direction. It is also informed that no such transaction is recorded in the service register of Shri. J. Balaji, Loco pilot/Tiruchchirappalli Division...."
Respondent stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; therefore, the Appellant was being informed accordingly. Even otherwise, there is no such transaction of the alleged purchase of property recorded in the service register of Sh. J. Balaji.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Respondent has appropriately denied the property related transaction of Shri. J. Balaji, Loco pilot/Tiruchchirappalli Division, to the Appellant as it contains the elements of personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Here, attention of the Appellant is 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..."Page 4 of 5
In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Tiruchirappalli - 620001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)