Central Information Commission
Ram Niwas Meena vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 7 July, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/KVSAN/A/2019/157609
Ram Niwas Meena ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
RTI Cell, No - 5, Bathinda Cantt.,
Punjab - 151004. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2021
Date of Decision : 06/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 05/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/11/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2019 seeking following information;
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Subsequently, the CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 05.11.2019 which is as under :-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that despite payment of Rs. 160/-for 80 pages of information in compliance of CPIO's reply, only 72 pages were provided to him which were not certified and legible. He prayed the Commission to provide certified copy and legible copy of requisite information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:2
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Mohinder Singh, Principal & CPIO along with T. Rukmani, Assistant Commissioner & PIO , KVS no. 5, Bhatinda present through audio-conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background of the case stated that he had filed the instant RTI Application by dasti service on 3.8.2019 by depositing RTI fee of Rs. 10/- in cash however, the same was returned by the PIO on 05.08.2019 on the plea of non-submission of IPO in the proper format, later on he filed a fresh RTI Application through online mode with requisite fees on 20.08.2019. He further stated that on non-receipt of any response after a lapse of 33 days, he filed the First Appeal on 22.09.2019 and subsequently the PIO replied to him on 05.10.2019 with a demand of Rs. 160/- for furnishing the information running into 80 pages of desired documents. He added that in compliance to CPIO's reply, he deposited the requisite fee on 09.11.2019, however, the CPIO provided him only 72 pages of information which are neither certified nor legible and also complete information has not been provided to him till date which led to him to file the instant Second Appeal.
The PIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs against points no. 1 and 4 has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.11.2019. On point no. 2 of RTI Application, she further submitted that information sought for pertains to personal information of a third party which cannot be divulged in terms of RTI Act, while in response to point no. 3 of RTI Application, she explained that Appellant being a teacher of KV was transferred to other place and the concerned person took over the charge on account of administrative exigencies upon direction of the Principal who in the capacity of an administrative head, can take such action and no specific information in this regard in desired form was available with them.
Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant affirmed and explained that on point no 5 of RTI Application , he has sought a list of total number of classes taken /delivered by each teacher subject wise and designation wise. In this regard, the Commission apprised the Appellant that such information pertains to personal information of concerned teachers which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
3Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the information sought for at points no. 2, 4 and 5 more particularly the service related details of Ramesh Chand Yadav, attendance register of teachers as also the details of classes delivered by teachers subject wise pertains to personal information of third parties disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of said teachers, thus stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of 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. Moreover, the Appellant has failed to substantiate his arguments regarding the larger public interest which would serve in disclosure of such information.
Further, on point no. 3 of RTI Application, the Appellant has sought clarification and inferences from the PIO which does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act; yet the PIO in her wisdom has provided necessary clarifications during hearing to assist the Appellant which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
In this regard, 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. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:4
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of aforesaid observation, no further relief is warranted in the matter.5
However, considering the contentions raised by the Appellant during hearing, the CPIO is hereby directed to resend a copy of his reply along with certified- legible copy of averred 80 pages of information, free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction shall be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes that the CPIO has erred in providing the personal information more particularly the attendance records of third parties against point no. 4 of RTI Application which was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking the consent of the said third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he should have sought for the consent of the third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. In addition to it, mere denial of information by the CPIO on points no. 2, 3 & 5 of RTI Application without quoting relevant exemption clause of Section 8 of RTI Act was also not appropriate.
Thus, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to deny any information and/or to disclose any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6