Central Information Commission
Dharmender Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 31 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000630
Dated 30.03.2017
Appellant : Shri Dharmender Singh,
S/o Late Shri Dinesh Singh,
VPO: Bahadarpur Jatt, PS: Pathri, Distt.
Haridwar, U.K.-294 405.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the DCP cum PIO,
VII Bn. DAP, PTS Malviya Nagar Complex,
New Delhi-110 017.
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application dated : 09.02.2016
CPIO's reply dated : 23.02.2016
First appeal dated : 04.03.2016/15.03.2016
FAA's order dated : 17.03.2016
Second appeal dated : 01.04.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Dharmender Singh filed an application dated 09.02.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), VII Bn. DAP, Delhi Police seeking information on seven points pertaining to one Constable Nitin Kumar, serving with VII Batallion, Delhi Armed Police (DAP), Malviya Nagar including details of leave availed by him viz. casual and earned leave from 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015.
CIC/SB/A/2016/000630 Page1
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.04.2016 before the Commission on the grounds that no information was furnished by either the CPIO or the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the disclosure of the information sought.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Dharmender Singh was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Rajender Kumar, Inspector, DAP (VII-Batallion) was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that since the appellant had sought information relating to Constable Nitin Kumar, a notice was issued to him under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act seeking as to whether the information sought should be disclosed or not. Shri Nitin Kumar, Constable has, vide letter dated 20.02.2016, requested that the third party information concerning him may not be provided to the appellant as the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, information was denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was also informed that the information sought by him cannot be provided in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012 @ CC14781/2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC & others, wherein the information was declined as the petitioner had not established that the information sought for is in the larger public interest. The respondent submitted that the appellant had nowhere in his appeal taken the plea that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such personal information.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that only information on point nos. 6 and 7 of CIC/SB/A/2016/000630 Page2 the RTI application can be considered as personal information. The Commission also observes that as per proviso to Section 11 of the RTI Act, disclosure of third party information can only be allowed if the public interest outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party. However, the appellant has not been able to establish larger public interest that would justify the disclosure of the information sought. Hence, the information sought cannot be divulged to the appellant.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/000630 Page3