Central Information Commission
Diwakar Pratap Pandey vs Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan on 21 June, 2021
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/RSSAN/A/2019/150234
Diwakar Pratap Pandey ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
RTI Cell, 59-57, Institutional
Area Janakpuri,
New Delhi-1 10058.
2. CPIO,
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
RTI Cell, Lucknow Campus,
Lucknow, UP .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/06/2021
Date of Decision : 18/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 24/06/2019 & 18/07/2019
First appeal filed on : 17/07/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/09/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2019 seeking information as under;2
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 24.06.2019 stating as under:
Point Nos. 1 to 6:- CPIO transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO, RSS, Lucknow Campus.
Point No. 7:- Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point No. 8:- Informed that the query is not specific.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.07.2019.
FAA's order dated 19.08.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO, RSS, Delhi dated 24.06.2019 and observed that the CPIO, RSS, Lucknow Campus had replied to the Appellant in the meantime on 18.07.2019 stating as under:3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent No.1: Prof. R G Murlikrishnam, Deputy Director (Admn) & CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: Prof. S N Jha, Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Commission observed at the very outset that the information sought for by the Appellant pertained to service matter of various third parties and most of the queries did not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant stated that the case may be decided on merits then.4
Decision:
In furtherance of the observations made during the hearing proceedings, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of the information by the CPIO & FAA under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it relates to various third parties and disclosure of the same may cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
Having observed as above, no scope of relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5