Central Information Commission
Ajit Hariram Lakhani vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 21 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2020/672927
Mr. Ajit Hariram Lakhani ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Head Office, Bharat
Bhawan, 4&6 Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate, PB No. 688,
Mumbai-400001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 30-10-2019 FA : 10-01-2020 SA : 06-06-2020
CPIO : 14-11-2019 FAO : 10-01-2020 Hearing : 17-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on seven points, including inter-alia as under:-
"(a) TWO CERTIFIED COPIES OF RTI APPLICATIONS FILED BY RAJIV RAM NAGAR
(b) TWO CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF ALL ATTACHMENTS OR ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS
(c) TWO CERTIFIED COPIES OF REPLY OF CPIO TO EACH OF APPELLANTS RTI APPLICATION
(d) TWO CERTIFIED COPIES OF FIRST appeals FILED BY APPELLANT BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES.
(e) TWO CERTIFIED COPIES OF orders OF FAA IN EACH FIRST APPEAL". etc
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 14-11-2019 had denied the information sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RIT Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied Page 1 of 4 with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 10-01-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 10-01-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri S. K. Srivastava, GM (Liasion & Coordination)/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same have been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 30.10.2019.
6. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 14.11.2019, they have denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide its order dated 10.01.2020 also concurred with the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to the RTI application filed by one Mr. Rajiv Ram Nagar and issues related thereto. The Commission further observes that the information sought relates to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. In this regard the Commission referred to the decision passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 12/1/2010 [LPA No. 501/2009 - Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal] has held as under:
"115. The Act makes no distinction between an ordinary individual and a public servant or public official. As pointed out by the learned single Judge "-----an individual's or citizen's fundamental rights, which include right to privacy - are not subsumed or extinguished if he accepts or holds public office." Section 8(1)(j) ensures that all information furnished to Page 2 of 4 public authorities - including personal information [such as asset disclosures] are not given blanket access. When a member of the public requests personal information about a public servant, -such as asset declarations made by him -a distinction must be made between personal data inherent to the person and those that are not, and, therefore, affect his/her private life. To quote the words of the learned single Judge "if public servants ---- are obliged to furnish asset declarations, the mere fact that they have to furnish such declaration would not mean that it is part of public activity, or "interest". ----- That the public servant has to make disclosures is a part of the system's endeavour to appraise itself of potential asset acquisitions which may have to be explained properly. However, such acquisitions can be made legitimately; no law bars public servants from acquiring properties or investing their income. The obligation to disclose these investments and assets is to check the propensity to abuse a public office, for a private gain." Such personal information regarding asset disclosures need not be made public, unless public interest considerations dictates it, under Section 8(1) (j). This safeguard is made in public interest in favour of all public officials and public servants."
9. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 17-12-2021
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Head Office, Bharat Bhawan,
4&6 Currimbhoy Road
Ballard Estate, PB No. 688,
Mumbai-400001
2. Mr. Ajit Hariram Lakhani
Page 4 of 4