Central Information Commission
Mssunita Jain vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 20 June, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001058/5395
Date of hearing 13 June 2014
Date of Decision 20 June 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Sunita Jain
H-30, "Shanti Vihar Colony',
Makronia Razakheri,
Sagar-470004, M. P.
Respondent : CPIO & Asstt. General Manager (Admin)
BSNL
O/o the General Manager Telecom
District Hoshangabad, Gandhi Nagar,
Itarsi - 461111
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2012
PIO replied on : 23/10/2012
First appeal filed on : 23/11/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 28/12/2012
Second Appeal dated : 01/04/2013
Information sought:
1- Certified copy of year wise leave details such as CL, EL & HPL from 01/01/1996 to 24/09/2012.
2- Detail of tours/journeys performed outside HQ from 01/01/1996 to 24/09/2012. 3- Certified copies of log books of all vehicles from 01/01/1996 to 24/09/2012.
of Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, ITS (Staff no. 8619) S/o Shri Phool Chandra Jain, General Manager Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hoshangabad at Itarasi (MP) of last Sixteen years (w.e.f. year 1996-97 to 2012-13).
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information as desired has not been given.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. S S Patel CPIO through VC M: 9425409690 The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing, however, she is absent. The CPIO stated that the appellant is involved in a matrimonial litigation with Shri Pawan Kumar Jain and has been seeking all sorts of information about him and the Commission's order dated 26/12/2007(File No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00277) was challenged by the third party(viz. Mr. P.K. Jain) before the Hon'ble Jabalpur High Court by filing a writ petition (no. 341 of 2008) and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08/01/2008 has stayed the operation of the impugned order which continues to remain operational till date. He informed that the Commission in the impugned order Page 1 of 2 had reasoned that in view of the applicability of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act the information sought (viz. the monthly remuneration payable to Mr. Jain) has to be disclosed but the Hon'ble High Court has granted a stay.
The CPIO in his reply dated 23/10/2012 addressed to the appellant has inter alia informed her that the information relates to a third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the third party has objected to the disclosure and since no larger public is involved the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The FAA is his order dated 28/12/2012 has upheld the view taken by the CPIO stating that his stand is in consonance with the legal position propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03/10/2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012].
Decision notice:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03/10/2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012] has observed that the performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information' the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activities or interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the information sought is for larger public purpose.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has taken cognizance of the above ruling in the matter of Subhash Bajirao Khemnar vs. Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat & Others (WP No. 1825 of 2013) decided on 22/08/2013 and held:
"....that the Chief Information Commissioner was not justified in directing the Information Officer to supply personal information in respect of the service record, income tax returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was justified in larger public interest."
Prima facie the information asked for by the appellant appears to be personal information concerning the husband of the appellant and there appears no larger public interest involved in ordering disclosure thereof. The appellant was given an opportunity to appear and substantiate her claim that the disclosure of the information asked for by her is in larger public interest. The appellant did not avail the opportunity even though notice of hearing was duly served on her and hearing was arranged through videoconferencing.
In view of the above there appears no justification to interfere with the decision of the CPIO which has been upheld in the first appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2