Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

L K Arya vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 5 March, 2019

                                   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/NPCOI/A/2018/100276


L K Arya                                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                            VERSUS
                                             बनाम


CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of                              ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
India Ltd., Rajasthan

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI :05.10.2017               FA      :06.11.2017          SA     : 26.12.2017

CPIO : 28.10.2017             FAO : 23.11.2017             Hearing: 21.02.2019


                                       ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), Rajasthan seeking details of the dependants of four employees of NPCIL viz. Shri S.P. Sharma, Shri P.N. Prasad, Shri Virendra Singh and Shri S.N. Prasad.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information as sought by him and also to impose a penalty upon the erring officials.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri L.K. Arya and the respondent Shri R.L. Bunkar, Senior Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Rajasthan attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that he has sought certain details of the dependants of four employees viz. Shri S.P. Sharma, Shri P.N. Prasad, Shri Virendra Singh and Shri S.N. Prasad. However, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that as the date of birth of the dependants of the above-said employees as mentioned in the records are different from their actual date of birth, the matter relates to corruption and hence, the information sought for should have been disclosed to him in larger public interest. The appellant also submitted that the date of birth is not a personal information of an individual.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant has sought the name of dependant, date of birth, relation with the employee and CHSS number of the dependants of the above said four employees, which relates to personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third Page 2 of 5 parties and hence, the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 28.10.2017.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition no. 677 of 2013 (Union of India vs. Anita Singh) in its decision dated 31.10.2013 has held that:

"........information such as date of birth and residential address would constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act ........."

7. In view of the above ratio, the information sought relates to the personal information of third parties. The Commission further observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 611) has held:

22. "The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs 2). It Page 3 of 5 also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]"

8. In view of the above, it can be inferred that larger pubic interest implies interest of the society as a whole as opposed to particular interest of individual. Hence, mere allegation of corruption do not render the matter one of larger public interest. Therefore, since the information sought for relates to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:28.02.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site, P.O. Anushakti via Kota, Rajasthan- 323303

2. Shri L K Arya Page 5 of 5