Central Information Commission
Mohanan Pillai K vs Spices Board on 22 September, 2023
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/SPIBO/A/2022/158998
Mohanan Pillai K ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Spices Board, Sugandha Bhavan,
NH Bypass, Palarivattom,
Ernakulam, Kerela 682025 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/09/2023
Date of Decision : 18/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 08/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 29/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/10/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. When P. J Mathew, the retired driver was joined in Spices Board? (Year, month, and date)
2. When did P. J Mathew retire from Service? (Year, month, and date)
3. How many grades/promotions with 30 years MACP has given to P. J Mathew till he was retired? (Year, month, and date)
4. How many increments have been given to P. J Mathew from his joining to his retirement? (Year, month, and date)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.06.2022 stating as under:
"Information requested are exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.07.2022, upheld the decision of the CPIO and the appeal is rejected.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Not Present.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application despite a specific information being sought for. Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Appellant and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. On the other hand, the 2 Respondent in its reply contended that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant involves personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the 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.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 records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical 3 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..."
In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the Respondent is in agreement and same is being upheld by the Commission.
Nonetheless, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation for disregarding the Commission's notice of hearing by not appearing before the bench. The said written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission within 7 days of the receipt of this order.
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 / 4