Central Information Commission
Vishal Kumar vs Indian Navy on 19 January, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/INAVY/A/2018/165948
In the matter of:
Vishal Kumar
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the PIO, Headquarters,
Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Post,
Visakhapatnam - 530 014
2. Central Public Information Officer
The Commanding Officer, INS Rajaji,
Naval Air Station, Camp Post,
Arakkonam - 631006.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 14/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 26/03/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 15/05/2018 Second Appeal Filed on : 04/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Date of Decision : 18/01/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Cdr. BVS Prasad, CPIO, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam and Lt. Cdr. Anish Kumar, CPIO, Naval Air Station, Camp Post, Arakkonam both present over VC.
1Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the certified true copies of counselling (Sl. 01 to 06) given by Lt Cdr Saurabh Yadav 05945-K, Gunnery Officer INS Rajali to him.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has refused to provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the order of the FAA claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act as the information is related to him only and does not involve any third party. He also relied on the decision dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000694. The relevant para of the order is reproduced below:
"On the other hand the contention of respondents from the Ministry of Defence, Controller General of Defence Accounts in refusing the information is so absurd as to be hardly worthy of consideration. A fiduciary relationship is between a lawyer & client or a doctor & patient, in other words information provided in a private capacity in the fullest confidence. It may also be argued in the case of the Government working with an individual or an agency outside Government on an issue of mutual trust. It can hardly be applied to the relationship between the Government and its own employees. It certainly cannot cover noting in a public document."
The CPIO, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam reiterated the contents of the FAA order dated 15.05.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO has grossly erred in not having provided the information and has relied on irrelevant regulations and memorandum. It shall be noted that there is no provision under the RTI Act that restricts an applicant from seeking any particular type of information under this Act even if he/she may have access to the same through other channels. Thereafter, the FAA had denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The contention of the appellant is that the information is related to him and hence Section 8(1)(j) quoted by the FAA is irrelevant. The decision quoted by him in regard to Section 8(1)(e) is also justified.
On a query to the CPIO to explain as to what are the contents of the Counselling Register, to whom is it related and to justify each of the 2 exemptions claimed, he submitted that the Counselling register contains the performance of an employee. He also agreed that the exemption claimed vide the letter dated 14.03.2018 was not proper and he will abide with the order of the Commission. In view of this, the Commission holds that the desired information related to the appellant should be provided to the him, however, as far as the rest of the information is concerned which is related to some other persons, these shall be severed u/s 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant as discussed above within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should note that any personal information of any third party is to be severed while providing the desired information to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3