Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anirudh Jadhav vs Directorate General Of Shipping Dg(S) on 1 April, 2026

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

File No: CIC/DGOSP/A/2025/624813

Anirudh Jadhav                                           .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

The CPIO
M/o. PORTS, SHIPPING AND WATERWAYS,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SHIPPING,
RTI CELL, MARINE HOUSE, HASTINGS,
KOLKATA -700022                                       .... तवाद गण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    30.03.2026
Date of Decision                    :    30.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    16.01.2025
CPIO replied on                     :    07.02.2025
First appeal filed on               :    20.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order   :    11.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated                    :    30.05.2025

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2025 seeking the following information:

"I am submitting this application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek information and documents related to Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC). The details are as follows: Details of the Request Page 1 of 4

1. Certified copies of the records or files concerning obtained CDC application.

2. Certified copies of 10th Certificate and marks sheets.

3. Certified copies of 12th (Intermediate) Certificate and marks sheets.

4. Certified copies of Graduation B.Sc. (Nautical Science) Certificate and marks sheets.

5. Any additional documentation required provides certified copies.

6. Request to provide Soft and Hard copy of certified copies of all does.

Personal Details of the Applicant:

 Name: Ranvir Prasad  Date of Birth: 15/11/1976  Indos No. : 00NL8144  CDC No. : 48191  Issue Place : KOLKATA"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.02.2025 stating as under:

"Reply: Being a third Party information, the information sought herein does not comes under the purview of RTI as per sub clause j of clause 8 of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, this office may not provide the information."

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 11.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Bijendra Chaubey, Shipping Master/CPIO present through video conference.

5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.

6. Appellant remained absent in the hearing despite service.

7. CPIO relied on his written statement by stating that information sought by the Appellant regarding Continuous Discharge Certificate of a particular individual is an identity document for seafarers issued for deployment on- board Merchant Ships, owned and operated by private parties worldwide. As the personal information may not be disclosed unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The information has not been provided to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, to safeguard the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Decision:

8. Heard the party, appeared.

9. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information from the CPIO. On the other hand, the CPIO has averred that Continuous Discharge Certificate of a particular individual is an identity document for seafarers issued for deployment onboard Merchant Ships, owned and operated by private parties world-wide. As the personal information may not be disclosed unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The information has not been provided to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, to safeguard the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

10. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO and agrees with the denial of information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information sought by the Appellant apparently invades the privacy of the concerned third-party. For that purpose, the hearing Bench relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012. The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy.

11. Having observed as above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter at this juncture.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Anirudh Jadhav Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)