Central Information Commission
Poornima M vs Indian Maritime University, Chennai on 10 April, 2023
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/IMUNC/A/2022/652799
POORNIMA M अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Maritime University,
RTI Cell, East Coast Road,
Semmencherry,
Kancheepuram-600119,
Tamil Nadu. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/03/2023
Date of Decision : 23/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 02/09/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please provide mentioned information in soft-copy only.1
Last time I applied for same information but you stated its voluminous data so I filled in CIC but I am unable to attend the CIC Hearing Venue but this time I will not missed CIC hearing sir.
Please Confirm the information related to advertisement "Advt. No. IMU- HQ/R/13/14/1/2018-Estt(Rectt.)/01 dated 21/04/2018".
1. Deputy Registrar- 2 nos.
2. Assistant Registrar -2 nos.
3. Section Officer-7 nos.
Provide with following advertisement related copies of (including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material) your Apex Body (EC):
a) All related memos & papers /(ION)/ orders relating to Above (Sl. No 1,2 &3) Post
1. S1.1 Initial Approved Vacancy (i.e) before advertisement and Vacancy Increased Noting after advertisement published.
2. Sl. 2 & 3 Initial Approved Vacancy ION and ION(Inter Office Noting) for Cancellation Notification.
3. SI.No (2 &3) Exam fee refund details and related noting or IOM Assistant Registrar & Section Officer Post
b) All related Approval/concern (Executive Council) from your Apex Body of (Sl. No 1,2 &3) Post
1. S1.1 Initial Vacancy and Vacancy Increased Approval.
2. Sl. 2 & 3 Initial Vacancy and Cancellation Approval."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.09.2022 stating as under:
"Please refer to your application no. IMUNC/R/E/21/00105 registered in RTI portal. Since the information requested by you is voluminous in nature, you are requested to visit IMU in-person for availing and inspecting the requisite information (except personal information and third party information). Kindly convey your readiness to visit IMU through email ([email protected]). On receipt of your readiness and requisite information from the concerned section, we will intimate you the date and time on which you can visit IMU and inspect (except personal details and third party information) those documents. This is for kind information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.09.2022, held as under:
2"CIPI intimated on 02.09.2022 the willingness to share the information (except exempted u/s 8(1)(j) and requested to visit IMU with prior intimation of date and time. However, you preferred for First Appeal instead of visit to IMU. Further, in your similar request to IMU vide RTI No.IMUNC/R/E/21/00105 the same was disposed off by the second appeal (Information Commission) on 08.08.2022 vide CIC/DSHIP/C/2022/610236 "considering the absence of the complainant to plead her case, no further action is warranted in the matter".
The complaint is disposed of accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: R. Anbu, Assistant Registrar & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated in a vague manner that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. In response to it, the Commission apprised the Appellant that her same RTI Application has already been heard and decided by this bench vide case no. CIC/DSHIP/C/2022/610236 on 08.08.2022 with the following observations -
"...At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of facts and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the information sought for by the Complainant including the entire files notings for the averred vacancy position contains the elements of personal information of said third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard attention of the Complainant 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. 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 3 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..."
However, ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIO has erred in providing the opportunity of inspection of relevant records of third party's personal information which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he should have sought for the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act."
Contesting the above said observation, the Appellant stated that the information sought is in public interest; therefore, veil of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not applicable in her case.
The CPIO reiterated his averred reply.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observed that the rationale of aforesaid judgement is squarely applicable to the instant case as well.
Thus, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5