Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pranav Barapatre vs Iit Goa on 27 November, 2024

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                    बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद     ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं          ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IITGO/A/2023/643645

Pranav Barapatre                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Technology Goa,                                              ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 04.05.2023                 FA      : 06.06.2023              SA     : 07.09.2023

CPIO : 05.06.2023                FAO : 05.07.2023                  Hearing : 20.11.2024


Date of Decision: 26.11.2024
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 Provide the following information under RTI Act, 2005 as per the service record with IIT Goa (2019 onwards):

(i) How many employees have joined IIT Goa from IIIT Vadodara.

(ii) Provide the names of employees with present designation who have joined IIT Goa from IIIT Vadodara.

(iii) Provide the employee wise date of relieving of employees from IIIT Vadodara who have joined IIT Goa.

(iv) Provide the employee wise date of joining at IIT Goa who have relieved from IIIT Vadodara. ..., etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"The information sought does not pertain to the larger public interest hence cannot be provided under RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2023 stated as under:

"It is to bring to your notice that the CPIO has replied to your RTI application through a letter dated 05/06/2023. In pursuance of section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI act 2005 the information sought is exempted of disclosure.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the appeal made stands disposed-off."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.09.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rishikesh, Assistant Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought the name of the employees with their designation who have joined IIT Goa from Vadodara and other related issues. He further submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He stated that the RTI application was not responded within 30 days and the Frist appeal was decided without giving him an opportunity for hearing which was against the natural justice. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to other employees (third-parties), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. When enquired by the Commission regarding availability of the information on point no. 1 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the information sought on said point was not readily available with them.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 05.06.2023. Further, the respondent clarified that the information sought on point no.1 is not readily available with them. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party on the remaining points, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. 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 & amp; 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 Page 3 of 4 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..."

9. Moreover, the FAA has exercised his discretion of not calling the appellant for hearing before disposing of first appeal. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 26.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Indian Institute Of Technology Goa, CPIO, RTI Cell, Goa College Of Engineering Campus, Farmagudi, Ponda, Goa- 403401

2. Pranav Barapatre Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)