Central Information Commission
Sugan Chandra Gupta vs Rashtraiya Ispat Nigam Ltd. on 3 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RINLT/A/2023/646417
Shri Sugan Chandra Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024
Date of Decision : 01.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.08.2023
PIO replied on : 07.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : 27.08.2023
First Appellate Order on : 12.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 27.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2023 seeking information on the following point:-
"THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ON 10/04/2023 ORDERED THE INFORMATION SEEKER TO ISSUE NOTICES TO THE ACCUSED INCASE NO CRL RC 377/2022 FILED BY THE INFORMATION SEEKER FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES UNDER SECTION167,218 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 32 AND 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860. THE COGNIZANCE AND PROSECUTION OF ACCUSED FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES IS IN PUBLIC INTEREST.IN SPITE BEST EFFORTS THE INFORMATION SEEKER COULD NOT OBTAIN THE ADDRESSES AND EMAIL ADRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING ACCUSED AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT FROM RINL. DN RAO, EX- DIRECTOR (OPERATION) RINL THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE CURRENT ADRESSES AND E ΜΑIL OF THE ABOVE ACCUSED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY."
The CPIO, DGM (Adm.)-HOD, General Administration Department Visakhapatnam Steel Plant vide letter dated 07.08.2023 replied as under:-
"The information sought is pertaining to third party. As per Section-11 (1) of RTI Act 2005, consent of the third party concerned has been obtained whether the information sought can be disclosed and the third party has denied sharing of Page 1 of 3 information as the information relating to his address and email-id is available with the company in 'fiduciary' capacity and hence he objected to the disclosure of his address, email-id or any other personal details to anyone under any circumstances.
In view of the above, the information sought i.e. addresses and email addresses of D.N. Rao, Ex- Director(Operation), RINL cannot be furnished as per Section 11(1) of RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2023. The FAA, CGM-HR, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant vide order dated 12.09.2023 held as under:-
"The case record has been perused. CPIO and concerned officials have been heard. It is observed from the record that since the information sought relates to third party information, vide email dt.3.8.2023, Shri D.N. Rao was informed that his addresses and email-ids available with RINL will be disclosed to Shri S.C. Gupta against his RTI application and informed him to make representation, if any, against the proposed disclosure within a period of 10 days. Shri D.N. Rao vide reply email dt.3.8.2023, has informed that the information relating to his address and email-id is available with the company in 'fiduciary' capacity and hence has objected to the disclosure of his address, email-id or any other personal details to anyone under any circumstances."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 24.06.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Anjani Kumar - CPIO and Smt. P Sneha- Senior Manager (HR) were heard through video conference during hearing. Both parties reiterated their respective contentions as already noted above and the Appellant emphasised that Court Notices need to be served to the retired CMD of RINL and hence he sought the address. The Respondent reiterated that the concerned retired officer has specifically objected to disclosure of information about his address, in the course of proceedings followed under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Respondent further pointed out that no larger interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant nor is there any Court order directing disclosure of such information.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that appropriate response has been sent by the Respondent, which is well within the provisions of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, since appropriate information in terms of provisions of the RTI Act Page 2 of 3 has already been provided by the Respondent, no further intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)