Central Information Commission
Sushanta Tanty vs Mahanadi Coalfiels Limited on 20 July, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MCFLT/A/2019/151595
Sushanta Tanty ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,
RTI Cell, PO Jagruti Vihar, Burla,
Distt. - Sambalpur - 768020. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/07/2021
Date of Decision : 19/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SarojPunhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 16/08/2019& 19/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 11/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 10/10/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/10/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.07.2019 seeking following information;2 3
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application on 16.08.2019 under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the General Manager, IB Valley Area MCL and General Manager (P-NEE)MCL.
Subsequently, CPIO, MCL furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.08.2019 which is as follows:-4
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2019. FAA's order dated 10.10.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO and further held as under:-
".....The information sought at point No. 5(a)(1) regarding letter no. MCL/GM/IBV/PER/2015/38/2563 dated 03.09.2015 in respect of CMPF refund clam of nominees of Late M. H. comes under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as no longer public interest is fulfilled and denied for further revealing. No further action is required from the CPIO, MCL, HQ."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of complete desired information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (The contact number of the Appellant not available on record.) Respondent: Komala W Jawaid, General Manager (Personnel) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Commission at the outset remarked that Appellant has not provided his contact details either in the RTI Application or in the Second Appeal. Further, the only ground raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of information sought for from the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant in terms of RTI Act. She further reiterated the contents of her latest written submission dated 17.07.2021, relevant excerpts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
• ".....That, the information sought by the appellant i.r.o. of Late Mariyam Haro and disbursement of CMPF amount is purely personal in nature and divulging of which fulfils no larger public interest. • That, the appellant sought information running into 14 points which have been replied by the CPIO, MCL within the prescribed time frame. • That, the First Appellate Authority, MCL has also upheld the decision of the CPIO, MCL and disposed of the case with no further action. That, the 5 information sought at point no 5(a)(1) falls under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, and as such was denied to the appellant, which was subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Authority, MCL......"
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard for the want of contact details the Commission is constrained to dispose of the case after hearing submissions of the CPIO and perusing the case records on merits.
In doing so, the Commission based upon a perusal of facts on records observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application largelyrelates to details of gratuity refund of third party disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, SupremeCourt of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 whereinthe import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Acthas been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Courtin the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009;GirishRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors.,(2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.
Nonetheless, the CPIO and FAA have provided appropriate response along with requisite information to the Appellant keeping in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of aforesaid observation, no further action is warranted in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes that the CPIO has initially erred in providing the personal information more particularly the gratuity claim related details of third party which was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking the consent of the said third parties as per Section 11 6 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he/she should have sought for the consent of the third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Thus, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while disclosing any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Now, considering the fact that the Appellant could not be heard of for the want of contact details, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a complete copy of her written submission dated 17.07.2021 along with enclosures free of cost to the Appellant through email as well as through speed post. The said direction shall be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7