Central Information Commission
Sarat Chandra Khuntia vs Directorate Of Water Management (Icar) on 24 March, 2025
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/DOWMT/A/2024/104254.
Shri. Sarat Chandra Khuntia. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Directorate of Water Management.
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025
Date of Decision : 11.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.08.2023
PIO replied on : 30.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : 22.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 19.10.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 13.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Copy of the communication received from third party in response to cp90's notice dated 12.04.2023 as mentioned in CP90, CIFA( SCAR) Kausalyagaaga, MBSR'A Letter No, 04/R79/20/2022-23/238 DR. 15.05.2023"
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.08.2023 replied as under:-
"With reference to your RTI application dated 02.08.2023 (received at this end on 03.08.2023) it is stated that as per the provision of RTI Act - 2005, the information as desired by you (vide your application dated:
02.08.2023) comes under Section 8(1)(j) which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The undersigned is not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information. Accordingly, the information as sought by the applicant in the RTI application cannot be disclosed."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 19.10.2023 stated as under :-
Page 1 "1. The information sought by you is comes under Section 8(1)(j) which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The undersigned is not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information. Accordingly, the information as sought by the applicant in the RTI application cannot be disclosed.
ii. Perused the documents submitted by the complainant and also by the respondent. It is observed that the complainant's RTI- request dated 02.08.2023 has already been replied by the CPIO, ICAR-CIFA, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar vide F. No. 04/RT1/8/2023- 24/Estt.1/979 dtd. 30.08.2023."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri H.L. Meena The CPIO submitted that point wise reply vide letter dated 30.08.2023 wherein it was informed to the Appellant that information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) RTI Act, 2005 Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed off.
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 2 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)