Central Information Commission
Ramesh D Sarasia vs S.V. National Institute Of Technology, ... on 20 June, 2022
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216
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/SNITS/A/2021/100216
In the matter of:
Ramesh D Sarasia ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Sardar Vallabhabhai National
Institute of Technology,
(SVNIT)Ichchhanath Surat-
Dumas, Road, Keval Chowk,
Surat, Gujarat -395007
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 23.10.2020
CPIO replied on : 20.11.2020
First Appeal filed on : 24.11.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 17.12.2020
Second Appeal received on : 04.01.2021
Date of Hearing : 08.06.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Ramesh D Sarasia, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Surat
Respondent: Shri K.K. Singh, Deputy Registrar & PIO (Admn.) along with
Dr. Pramod Mathur, CPIO & Registrar, participated in the hearing through
video conferencing from NIC Surat.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 23.10.2020 seeking information as under:
The CPIO, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat vide letter dated 20.11.2020, enclosed a letter/note given by Registrar & PIO Admin, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat dated 12.11.2020 wherein denied information to the Appellant as under:Page 2 of 8
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.12.2020, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. Upon being queried by the Commission to establish the larger public interest in seeking personal information of third party, he stated that he needed this information to unleash a recruitment scam in Respondent public authority's office. The Commission further quizzed the Appellant that whether he has any documentary evidence for putting such allegations on the Respondent Public Authority, the Appellant could not provide a cogent reply.Page 3 of 8
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 The Respondent submitted that there was no recruitment scam and these are merely allegations put upon them by the Appellant. He further added that the Appellant was working with them as a site engineer (daily wagerer) and was expelled from SVNIT for a sexual harassment case. He furthermore submitted that since the Appellant was seeking personal information of third party in his RTI Application, they have sought dissent/consent of the concerned third party vide letter dated 26.10.2020. The contents of the same are as under:
He further added that the concerned third party vide letter dated 28.10.2020 has expressed his dissent to share his information with the Appellant and accordingly they have denied the dissemination of information to the Appellant under Section 8 1 (j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 12.11.2020.
The contents of the dissent letter dated 28.10.2020 are as under:Page 4 of 8
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 30.05.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 5 of 8
CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 Page 6 of 8 CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 A trajectory of the case has been received by the Commission from the Respondent dated nil, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant has been rightly denied by the Respondent since it pertains to personal information of a third party who has expressed his dissent from divulging the same to any third party vide his dissent letter dated 28.10.2020.
Hence the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant case.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 20.06.2022 Page 7 of 8 CIC/SNITS/A/2021/100216 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) R.P. Grover (आर.पी. ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Sardar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology, (SVNIT) Ichchhanath Surat- Dumas, Road, Keval Chowk, Surat, Gujarat -395007
2. The Central Public Information Officer Sardar Vallabhabhai National Institute of Technology, (SVNIT) Ichchhanath Surat- Dumas, Road, Keval Chowk, Surat, Gujarat -395007
3. Mr. Ramesh D Sarasia Page 8 of 8