Central Information Commission
Mr. M. L. Gouhari vs Edcil (India) Limited, Ministry Of ... on 19 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002489/5605
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002489
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M. L. Gouhari,
A1/107, Janakpuri,
New Delhi - 110058
Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad
Public Information Officer & DGM EdCIL (India) Limited Ministry of Human Resource Development 18A, Sector 16A, Noida - 201301 RTI application filed on : 02/01/2009 PIO replied : 08/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 19/02/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2009 Second Appeal received on : 01/10/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 15/10/2009 Hearing Held on : 19/11/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO (given after expiry of time period of 30 days)
1. Dates of availment and refund of Information on matters relating to the amount of Rs. 1.59 lakhs that Shri National Small Industries Corporation on N.S. Padmanabhan availed as the same may be obtained from NSIC. medical reimbursement of his father illegally and had to refund after joining Ed. CIL as Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer.
2. Copy of Vigilance Clearance report The information is personal information at the time of appointment of Shri and also related to third party and hence N.S. Padmanabhan. is not provided under section 8(1)(j).
3. How is it that out of 85 persons Information requested does not come recruited by Ed.CIL as mentioned in under the ambit of definition of letter no. RTI/55/08-Admin dated information. 28/11/2008 none was found eligible to be posted at RJIT Project site Tekanpur, Gwalior and only Shri Rajesh Gouhari was appointed on the pretext of administrative exigency?
First Appeal:
PIO had not replied within the requisite time period. Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that the PIO had sent a reply vide letter dated 08/05/2009 and that no further information was available.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. M.L. Gouhari;
Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad, Public Information Officer & DGM;
The PIO has not given information on query 1 & 2 and states that he believes these are covered by the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Query-1 of the Appellant wants information about Rs.1.5/- lakh paid as medical bill imbursement to a PRO and them refunding of the amounts. Query-2 seeks a copy of the vigilance clearance report obtained when Mr. Padmnabhan joined. None of these can come under the definition of personal information which has no relation to any public activity. Both these information are clearly in the course of the public activity and can by no stretch of imagination it can be considered as an invasion on the privacy of an individual.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give information on query 1 & 2 to the Appellant before 30 November 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19 November 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)