Central Information Commission
Shilpi Kanth vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 29 April, 2025
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/IGNOU/A/2024/104484
Shilpi Kanth ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indira Gandhi National
Open University (IGNOU) ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Patna
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.10.2023 FA : 27.10.2023 SA : 04.12.2023
CPIO : 16.10.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 29.04.2025
Date of Decision: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. िबहार िव ापीठ, इ ू अ यन क (5138) सदाकत आ म कुज पटना 800010 (कोऑिडनेटर डा. सुरे साद जायसवाल) के संचालन मानदे य िवतरण आिद से संबंिधत संपूण संिचका की छाया ित उपल कराने के संबंध म।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 1 of 4
"इस संदभ म आपको सूिचत करना है िक उ के का संचालन िपछले दो वष से बंद है । संचािलत अविध म संयोजक व अ कािमको को मानदे य िनयमानुसार ेक ाह भुगतान िकया जा रहा था। चूंिक यह तृतीय प से संबंिधत है और िव ीय मामला है इसिलए मां गी गई सूचना या सा िनयमानुसार उपल नहीं करायी जा सकती।"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.12.2023.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Anand Kumar, Dy. Registrar and Ms. Shalini Dikshit, Assistant Regional Director, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to Mr. Rajender Prasad Jaiswal (third-party), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been claimed.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent 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 16.10.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied as third party but did not mention Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in the above said reply. 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 Page 2 of 4 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 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..."
8. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions 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: 29.04.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Indira Gandhi National Open University, Institutional Area, Mithapur, Patna - 800001 2 Shilpi Kanth Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)