Central Information Commission
Bhaskar Ravibhai Trivedi vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 3 March, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/169573/03022
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/169573
In the matter of:
Bhaskar Ravibhai Trivedi
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 31/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 24/09/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 24/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 18/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 02/03/2020 Date of Decision : 02/03/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kakar, representative of the CPIO, present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect to Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil - Membership No. 102040, holding full time certificate of Practice, who is working as an In-Charge Principal and as a Full Time Lecturer with Mumbai University Affiliated Bal Bharati's M J Pancholia College of Commerce, S.V. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067:
1. A copy of the form No. 6 filled in and submitted by Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil.
2. All the correspondence between the Institute and Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil.1
3. All the correspondence between the DCO - Mumbai and Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil.
4. File noting and Minutes of Discussion by any Committee/Body of the Institute and DCO- Mumbai, in the matter of Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) & Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the matter attracts larger public interest and involves misappropriation of government funds and the said information would provide pima facie evidence in this regard as any member of the ICAI registered as a CA and drawing grant - in - aid salary by virtue of employment as a full time lecturer/In-charge Principal is per se an illegality both with respect to the ICAI regulations and the applicable statutes/ service regulations/rules which does not permit receipt of salary grant by teachers who are into gainful self - employment and that the post of lecturer held by the said member is a grant - in - aid post and the registration with the ICAI as a CA is gainful self - employment as the said member whose information is sought is a practicing CA holding Full Time COP.
The representative of the CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 31.08.2018 and submitted that it was clearly mentioned in the said reply that the COP status of the third party namely Vakilna Aashish Anil was part time. He also relied on two orders of the Commission passed in File No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00554 dated 04.12.2008 and CIC/AT/A/2006/00072 31.05.2006 to substantiate the fact that the information related to any third party cannot be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act.
The relevant para of File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00072 is reproduced below:
"It is fairly obvious that information which the appellant has sought in respect of Sh. S C Sharma, such as the latter's diploma and matriculation certificates, mark sheet and so on are in the nature of personal information about a third party. Sh. Sharma might have filed these documents before the appointing authority for the purpose of seeking employment, but that is not reason enough for this information to be 2 brought in to the public domain to which anybody could have access. Apart from this, we don't see any public purpose which the disclosure of this information would serve. It could be argued, hypothetically, that the intention of the appellant was to unearth some act of misdemeanour by Shri S. C Sharma, in gaining employment in State Farms Corporation. It can even be argued that gaining employment,(through fraudulent means), by an employee cannot be said to be a personal matter which could received the protection of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act . This being so there is no evidence before us that the appellant either knew of any fraudulent act by Shri Sharma or he had any tangible evidence to prove that point. In the absence of any such evidence or even an averment, we are unable to assess whether the information sought by the appellant, though apparently personal to Shri Sharma, also had a public bearing on account of some impropriety or fraud. In the absence of any evidence of wrong- doing by Shri Sharma in getting the appointment, we concur in the conclusion of the PIO that the information requested by the appellant was personal information pertaining to Shri Sharma which served no public interest and, therefore, need not be disclosed to the appellant".
At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that he has sought information from the year 2011 to 2018 and not only for the year 2018, in which year the CPIO gave a reply.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the contention raised by the appellant is that how can a person who has been issued a full time Certificate of Practice by ICAI to work as a Chartered Accountant, also work as an In-Charge Principal and as a Full Time Lecturer with Mumbai University Affiliated Bal Bharati's M J Pancholia College of Commerce and in this regard, the appellant has sought a copy of the form No. 6 filled in and submitted by Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil alongwith other related documents. During the hearing, the representative of the CPIO submitted that the above mentioned third party was only issued a part time COP and he can do certain amount of work outside ICAI organisation. While agreeing to this response, the appellant, however, submitted that the status of the COP of Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil may be provided for the period mentioned in his original 3 RTI application, i.e. from the year 2011 to 2018. The CPIO submitted that he is willing to share this information with the appellant.
With regard to the points raised by the appellant in his RTI application, the Commission agrees with the stand of the CPIO and the orders relied on by him that such information being related to a third party is duly exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence no relief can be provided to the appellant on these points. However, the period for which the information on part time or full time COP was sought can be provided.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the status of the COP of Mr. Vakilna Aashish Anil for the period mentioned in his original RTI application, i.e. from the year 2011 to 2018 to the appellant within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4