Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sarwan Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 10 February, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2023/145464

Sarwan Singh                                           .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


PIO,
Ambala Cantonment Board,
229, Race Course Road, Ambala
Cantt. - 133001                                        .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    04.02.2025
Date of Decision                     :    07.02.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :    23.06.2023
CPIO replied on                      :    22.08.2023
First appeal filed on                :    27.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order    :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    06.11.2023

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

"Complete file alongwith ownership document, Lease deed, NOC in case property No. 99-A, The Mall / Alexendra Road, Ambala Cantt measuring 148'x148' having firms in the name as M/s Bassan and Company and Bassan Filling Station, in these premises now changed name to Bassan Page 1 of 5 Motor Workshop and Arm and Air Fuels Filling Station, recently in the same premises i.e. 99-A Alexandra Road, Ambala Cantt."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.08.2023 stating as under:

"Reference your application under RTI Act 2005 dated 23.06.2023 and Ist Appeal dated 28.07.2023 and this office letter No. ACB/RTI/2023/1623 dated 18.08.2023.

In reference to your application under RTI Act referred above it is intimated to you that the concerned section has informed that the requisite information relates to the Defence Estates Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantt."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal with the following arguments:

"....Brief facts of the Case Leading to appeal Being one of the partner and old in age has been deprived of all the rights since many years without dissolution of the firms.

7. Ground of appeal PIO did not send reply Praying, Sir for favourable reply at the earliest..."

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Harkesh Kumar, CPIO, Cantt. Board, Ambala Cantt. Present through video-conference.

A written submission dated 31.01.2025 has been filed by the respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

"...It is submitted that the undersigned is working as Accountant in the office of Cantonment Board, Ambala and also performing the additional Page 2 of 5 duties of C.P.I.O. However, due to office exigencies the reply has been given vide letter No. ACB/RTI/2023/1669 dated 22.08.2023 to the applicant (copy enclosed) intimating that the information pertains to the Defence Estates Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantt on the direction of the First Appellant Authority. The First Appellant Authority vide letter No. ACB/RTI/2023/1623 dated 18.08.2023 (copy enclosed) had directed to the undersigned to provide information to the applicant."

The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that the appellant has already filed separate RTI application with the concerned custodian and received the reply in this regard. However, as far as instant RTI application is concerned it was already informed to the appellant that information pertains to Defence Estate Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantt.

Decision:

The Commission, at the outset, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records notes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to a property under reference where his locus standi is not established with any supportive documents and in that way, the information sought by him contains the elements of personal information of third party owners which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."

In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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.The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party.

However, ignoring the above aspect the CPIO vide his reply dated 22.08.2023 and 31.01.2025 informed the appellant that the actual custodian is someone i.e. Defence Estate Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantnoment Board which is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and should have replied to the appellant by invoking appropriate applicable clause of the RTI Act with proper application of mind.

Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA Ambala Cantonment Board, 229, Race Course Road, Ambala Cantt. - 133001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)