Central Information Commission
Kuldeep Parashar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 25 January, 2023
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा/ Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465
In the matter of:
Kuldeep Parashar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Annapoorneswari
Complex, Survey No. 37/1,
6th Main, Singasandra,
Hosur Main Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka-560068
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 01.10.2021
CPIO replied on : 26.10.2021
First Appeal filed on : 08.11.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25.11.2021
Second Appeal received on : 15.12.2021
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2023
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Parashar, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Kormangala
Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Haldony, CPIO & RPFC-II, Regional
Office, Bengaluru, participated in the hearing through video conferencing
from NIC Kormangala
Page 1 of 11
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 01.10.2021 seeking information on the following three points:
"My wife Ms. Kanchan Dubey has filed false maintenance case (MJCR/560/2021, Family Court District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh) and domestic violence case (MJCR/3391/2021, District Court Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh) where she has claimed that she is unable to maintain herself while she is working for CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMANT C PVT LTD (EPFO, BOMMASANDRA, Bangalore) The case is at the evidence stage and it is required to establish that Ms. Kanchan Dubey is gain fully employed and misleading the court. In the interest of justice, you are requested to provide certified copy of below information at the earliest Name: Kanchan Dubey, DOB: 14-04-1989, Aadhaar Number-489279421652, Father Name: Lalji Dubey Information sought:
1. Date of joining CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMANT C PVT LTD (Establishment ID -
PYBOM0018935000)
2. PAN number linked to PF account
3. Certified copy of PF account statement from date of joining to till date for CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMANT C PVT LTD It is to be noted that either spouse is not third party and information sought can not be denied under sec 8 of RTI Act as ruled by CIC in order against your department.
a. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/178329 dated 02-05-2017 Ravindra Karanjakar V/S EPFO, Thane b. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/104429 dated 25-04-2017 Mohit Kumar Bansal V/S PIO, EPFO, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 c. CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/174823 dated 02-01-2018 Agredeep Goel V/S EPFO, Delhi where it has been ordered to share UAN number along with statement and all other details Also, it has been ruled by Bombay HC bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition no. 10690 of 2017 in Central Public Information Officer, Aurangabad Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Another that information sought has to be provided as it does not fall under Section 8 (1)(e) or Section (1)(j)."
Shri Deepak Arya, CPIO/APFC, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bengaluru (Electronic City) vide letter dated 26.10.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
Page 3 of 11CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.11.2021, informed as under:Page 4 of 11
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 Page 5 of 11 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent. He further added that a matrimonial dispute is pending between him and his estranged wife and that is why he is seeking such sort of information from the Respondent.Page 6 of 11
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is third party's personal information which is held by their office in fiduciary capacity which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act and accordingly sufficient reply has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 26.10.2021 and 25.11.2021.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Manish Kumar Haldony, CPIO & RPFC-II , Regional Office, Bengaluru vide letter dated 11.01.2023, wherein the commission has been apprised as under:Page 7 of 11
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which is held by the Respondent Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and the same has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM Page 8 of 11 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex- husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in- laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In Page 9 of 11 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 24.01.2023 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पं जीयक) 011-26105027 Page 10 of 11 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/660465 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Annapoorneswari Complex, Survey No. 37/1, 6th Main, Singasandra, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560068.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Annapoorneswari Complex, Survey No. 37/1, 6th Main, Singasandra, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 068
3. Mr. Kuldeep Parashar Page 11 of 11