Central Information Commission
Ankur Gupta vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 29 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/NIFTY/A/2017/135757
Ankur Gupta
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO, National Institute of Fashion
Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 08.03.2017
CPIO reply : 11.04.2017
First Appeal : 02.05.2017
FAA Order : 16.05.2017
Second Appeal : 23.05.2017
Date of hearing : 13.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 08.03.2017 sought information regarding action taken on his letter dated 01.02.2017 addressed to the Director, NIFT regarding possible violation of NIFT conduct rules by the NIFT New Delhi Faculty. The CPIO replied on 11.04.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 02.05.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 16.05.2017. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 23.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Page 1 of 4
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Smt. Neenu,
Joint Director cum CPIO along with
Smt. Rachna Khatri,
Assistant Professor with Advocate
National Institute of Fashion
Technology
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 11.04.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 16.05.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The respondent advocate submitted that the genesis of the complaint dated 01.02.2017 is a dispute between husband and his wife. He further submitted that no public interest is involved in this case as it was related to personal vengeance. The appellant was using the RTI legislation to settle scores with his wife which was not the objective of the lawmakers. The dispute was purely a private matter and hence the disclosure sought for would breach the right to privacy of the third party concerned in this case i.e the wife. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs UOI and Ors dated 01.07.2009 as follows.
23. As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute - to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in Page 2 of 4 "public interest" : the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent as larger public interest angle is involved in this case and the information sought must be provided to him. The appellant further submitted that his case was quite different from that of the above cited one i.e. Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India. The appellant further submitted that the NIFT is a public authority and hence it was duty bound to provide details of the action taken on his complaint.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the disclosure of the enquiry report may amount to breach of right to privacy of the third party concerned in this case. However, the details of action taken on the appellant's complaint is disclosable after masking the names of the third parties concerned i.e. the officers who dealt with the said record/file. In case there was no action taken on the said complaint of the appellant, the same needs to be intimated to the appellant.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to the points raised in the above stated RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised reply i.e. details of action taken on his representation dated 01.02.2017 complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The CPIO shall mask/remove the names and other personal details of the third parties i.e. the officers concerned etc u/s 10 of the RTI Act while providing the requisite information to the appellant.
Page 3 of 4OR In case there was no action taken on the said complaint of the appellant, the same may be intimated to the appellant within the time period specified above.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra ,
Dy. Registrar
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
अजय कु मार तलपा , उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Page 4 of 4