Central Information Commission
Shahensha Shaik vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 5 August, 2022
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369
के ीय सूचना 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/2021/119369
In the matter of:
Shahensha Shaik ... 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 : 21.12.2020
CPIO replied on : 24.12.2020
First Appeal filed on : 20.01.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 09.02.2021
Second Appeal received on : 17.05.2021
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent (Shri. Avinash, Network Engineer-NIC Nellore informed
the bench that the Appellant did not come)
Respondent: Shri. Deepak Arya, CPIO & Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office-
Page 1 of 8
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369
Bengaluru, participate in the hearing through video conference from NIC
Kormangala
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 21.12.2020 seeking information as under:
The CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bengaluru vide letter dated 24.12.2020, denied information to the Appellant as under:Page 2 of 8
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.02.2021, informed as under:Page 3 of 8
CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 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 did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to third party and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore the said information was denied to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Deepak Arya, CPIO & Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Page 4 of 8 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 Office, Bengaluru, Employees Provident Fund Organisation vide letter dated 25.07.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
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 Page 5 of 8 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, 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 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 Page 6 of 8 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 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 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 ) िदनां क / Date: 05.08.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 7 of 8 CIC/EPFOG/A/2021/119369 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 Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Annapoorneswari Complex, Survey No. 37/1, 6thMain, Singasandra, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560068
3. Mr. Shahensha Shaik Page 8 of 8