Central Information Commission
G S Harikumar vs Department Of Revenue on 28 March, 2023
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/DOREV/A/2022/139373
G S Harikumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DEPTT. OF REVENUE, O/o THE
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
RTI CELL, CUSTOMS HOUSE,
MARMAGOA, SOUTH GOA,
GOA-403803. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/03/2023
Date of Decision : 27/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 10/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 25/02/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 31/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Shri Rohidas Suranje, Skipper has attended duties on the following days as per your office records. Request to kindly provide information details of type of leave sanctioned to the said person on the absent days mentioned below by your office to regularize his attendance.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.02.2022 stated as under:
"It is informed that the asked information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.
In this connection, the reply of said RTI cannot be provided under Section 8(j) RTI rule, 2005."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 31.03.2022, held as under:
"4.7 I also find that the applicant fails to establish the larger public interest therefore the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the CPIO found to be proper.
4.8 However, in the interest of justice, it is directed to CPIO to pass an appropriate order if the applicant approaches with the proper applications under section 6(1) address to proper authority i.e Central Public Information Officer with authentic evidence on the issue."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present though video conference.
Respondent: Seema Chaudhary, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that there was no larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party therefore the same was informed to the Appellant that as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information is exempted.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause 3 unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5