Central Information Commission
Ajinkya Hanumantrao Sawant vs Mumbai Port Trust on 4 May, 2022
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/MPTRS/A/2021/615246
Ajinkya Hanumantrao Sawant ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Mumbai Port Trust, Mechanical &
Electrical Engineering Department, RTI Cell,
Chief Mechanical Engineer's office, Nirman
Bhawan, 5th Floor, Mumbai - 400010,
Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022
Date of Decision : 28/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 11/01/2021
First appeal filed on : 09/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 30/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/04/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.12.2020 seeking certified copy of the attendance sheet of Vijay Narayan Sawant (Chargeman Mechanical and Electrical Engineering department) From 8th August 2020 to 6th December 2020.1
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 11.01.2021 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2021. FAA's order dated 30.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of information sought for in public interest on the following grounds -
" ......The person Vijay Narayan Sawant whose information I am seeking is a criminal on whom FIR(FIR NO.223/2018) is lodged in Wadgoan Nimbalkar police station Tal Baramti Dist Pune & also in Koregoan Park Police Station Pune and he was released on bail and is under trial and also charge sheet is filed against him in court with the following case no. 4176/2019 in Shivajinagar district court. Vijay Narayan Sawant has done crime of forgery in Samarth Dnyanpeeth & Gramvikas Sanghatna Waghalwadi Someshwarnagar public trusts by making duplicate documents, by making signature of others trustees in trust ,by making use of duplicate stamp of trust & by showing his duplicate attendance to the annual and monthly meeting of trust. According to record of trust Vijay Narayan Sawant was present for many monthly and annual meetings of the trust and also at the same time of many monthly and Annual meetings he was also present on his duty which is proved by attendance information of V.N. Sawant received to A.N. Sawant who is one of the trustee of above named trust under RTI .For eg on 23/04/2017 he is present for annual meeting of trust and at the same time he is also present on his duty which is shown in his attendance record received under RTI. By showing his duplicate attendance in trust meeting he has also withdrawn major amount from trust account which is fraud in public trust. Vijay Narayan Sawant disturbed the good functioning of above named public trust by making forgery and fraud in trust. That is why I am seeking his Personal information (attendance record ) for public interest only i.e for interest of public trusts only. Vijay Narayan Sawant is cheating with both Mumbai Port Trust where he is working and also with public trust above named by showing his false/duplicate attendance at both places. As he is government employee & his salary is paid from the tax collected by public.
Samarth Dnyanpeeth & Gramvikas sanghatna Waghalwadi Someshwarnagar are public trusts which are running educational institutes for orphans, poors, VJNT Student and also running English medium Schools, B.Ed College, dairy diploma 2 college,etc. Thus, I am seeking information of Vijay Narayan Sawant for interest of above named public trust only which is useful to public trust in trusts court maters.
4.4 A government employee is a public functionary, whose salary is paid by the exchequer, therefore, his attendance records should be a public domain data and hence, eligible for disclosure under the RTI Act...."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: A. B. Kulkarni, Superintendent Engineer & CPIO present through videoconference.
The Commission at the outset apprised that the attendance record of the averred third party as sought by the Appellant is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; therefore the denial of information by the CPIO was in line with the spirit of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record and in furtherance of hearing proceedings observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the attendance records of a third party as sought by the Appellant with a sweeping element of larger public interest in disclosure of such information , by invoking 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 while explaining 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 3 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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter and reply of the CPIO is upheld.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4