Central Information Commission
Subrat Kumar Ray vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 27 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/KVSAN/A/2023/124585
Subrat Kumar Ray ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.12.2022 FA : 06.02.2023 SA : 31.05.2023
CPIO : 27.01.2023 FAO : 28.02.2023 Hearing : 18.09.2024
Date of Decision: 26.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Name of the occupants of Type II Quarters at KVS-RO campus Bhubaneswar alongwith their place of posting, period of posting and amount of monthly license fee paid by them/recovered from them during the period from December 2016 to December 2022.
(ii) No. of Qrs. (Type II) vacant as on Dec-2022 and No. of claimants thereof.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 4i. Address of the occupants cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. The license fee is being paid by the occupants of Type-II quarters at the rate prescribed by the Govt. of India from time to time for the period from December 2016 to December 2022. The rate of license fee for Type-II Quarters is at present Rs 370/- per month.
ii. (i) No. of Qrs, (Type II) vacant as on Dec 2022: 05.
(ii) No. of claimants thereof: Nil
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.05.2023.
5. The appellant's representative Mr. B. N Jena and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Srimat De Shankar, Administrative Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant's representative inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO on point no. 1 of the RTI application was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that available information on point no. 2 of the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 27.01.2023. He stated that the information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application pertained to the 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 had been sought.
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 an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated Page 2 of 4 27.01.2023. The perusal of the records further reveals that the appellant has sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application is personal information of a third party, thus, the respondent correctly denied the information under section 8 (1) (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 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..."
09. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Page 3 of 4Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 26.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
AO & CPIO,
Regional Office: Bhubaneswar, Pragati Vihar Colony, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751017
2. Subrat Kumar Ray Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)