Central Information Commission
Dr Naveen vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 21 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2023/627610
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/627606
DR NAVEEN निकायतकताग /Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Economic Affairs
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : O8.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
on appeal /Complainant
received on
627610 04.05.2023 17.05.2023 17.05.2023 05.06.2023 05.06.2023
627606 04.05.2023 17.05.2023 17.05.2023 05.06.2023 05.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1)CIC/DOEAF/C/2023/627610 (2)CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/627606 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"My Wife Vijayalakshmi R Haveri bearing pan card number ANNPH4581P with adhar number 256325565435, working as Chief Data officer Bengaluru smart City Itd, Bengaluru Karnataka.
Kindly provide Account and investment details, under any of the available diversified schemes. For Eg- mutual funds, National savings scheme, Fixed deposits, Bonds and equities, providential fund and other available and applicable schemes for citizens under Department Page 1 of economic affairs and Financial services. As registered and invested under the name, Aadhar and PAN of above person.
As the required documents need to be submitted in the honourable family court Haveri, for the impending Divorce and maintenance case, under assets and investments acquired by above person in various diversified investment schemes.
Kindly forward the requested documents to above address and do needful or to honourable family court Haveri, Karnataka. case number 17/2021 vijayalaxmi v/s Naveen."
The CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs vide letter dated 17.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Section 8 (1) (j) provides for exemption from disclosure of information which relates to personal information, the disclosure which has not relationship to any Public activity or interest."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 05.06.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal. Written submission dated 25.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant/Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Rathna Gurumurthy, US, NS Section and Mr. Harish Rajpal, US(PD)- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information sought by the RTI Applicant is related to personal information of third-party disclosure of which would cause unnecessary invasion of the privacy of an individual. He further stated that the information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Since both the aforementioned cases arise out of same RTI Application they are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Page 2 At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant has sought information pertaining to Ms. Vijayalakshmi R Haveri, which qualifies as third-party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. Commission\ of considered opinion that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The Second Appeal No. CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/627606 is disposed of, accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2023/627610, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant, hence no action warranted under section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)