Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Yadav vs Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chandigarh ... on 24 November, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/CCCEC/C/2020/666324
Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner Central
Goods & Service Tax
Commissionerate, Chandigarh, CR
Building, Plot No. 19, Sector-17-C
Chandigarh
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 14-01-2020 FA : Not on Record SA : 19-03-2020
CPIO : 29-01-2020 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 12-11-2021
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Pr. Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax, Chandigarh.The complainant seeking information is as under:-
1. The legible copy of OA filed by Shri Balwinder Singh Matharoo& ORS on CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 338/PB/2012.Page 1 of 5
2. The Legible copy of reply filed by the department in CAT, Chandigarh Bench against OA No. 338/PB/2012 filed by Shri Balwinder Singh Matharoo and Ors.
3. The Legible copy of Civil Writ Petition no. 25662 of 2012 filed by department in the high court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against Order dated 03.08.2012 in OA No. 338/PB/2012 filed by Shri Balwinder Singh Matharoo and Ors to CAT, Chandigarh Bench.
4. The Legible copy of Review Application No. 153/2013 filed by department in the high court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against the order dated 21.01.2013 in CWP no. 25662/2012 the high court of Punjab & Haryana
5. The Legible copy of SLP No. 5408-5409/2014 filed by department in the Supreme Court against the order dated 21.01.2013 in CWP no.
25662/2012 & order in Review Application No. 153/2013 in the high court of Punjab & Haryana respectively.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2020 had denied the information sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainantfiled a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Kiran Bhatia, CPIO/ Dy. Commissioner attended the hearing through audio- call.
4. The complainant submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application has been denied to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 29.01.2020, they have informed the complainant that "the original application filed by other persons/ CWP/SLP comprise the information which is personal in nature to the individual specific and disclosure of which does not involve any greater public interest. No Page 2 of 5 public interest is seen from the content of the application for which information should be provided to him. Hence, the information cannot be provided as per section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005." Therefore, the adequate reply as per available records has been provided to the complainant within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought legible copy of OA filed by Shri Balwinder Singh Matharoo& ORS on CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 338/PB/2012 and other related queries. That the respondent has already denied the information sought under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information related to third party. The Commission observes that since the appellant is seeking third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, therefore the respondent has rightly denied the information sought under the relevant provision of the RTI Act.
7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of GirishRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission &ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public Page 3 of 5 interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
8. In this regard, while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr.inCivil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20.
However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
9. In view of the above matrix, Prima facie, adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated at the stage of the Complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, it appears that there is no malafide denial of information in this case; hence no action is warranted u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
10. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Page 4 of 511. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 12-11-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
O/o. the Pr. Commissioner Central Goods
& Service Tax Commissionerate,
Chandigarh, CR Building, Plot No. 19,
Sector-17-C Chandigarh
2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav
Page 5 of 5