Central Information Commission
Vivekanand Abhyankar vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 28 April, 2022
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/MOCMI/A/2021/120372
Vivekanand Abhyankar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Department of Promotion of
Industry and Internal Trade,
IPR-Establishment Section, RTI Cell,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2. CPIO
Assistant Controller of Patents and
Designs, O/o Controller General of
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, RTI
Cell, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037, Maharashtra.
3. CPIO
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Intellectual Property office, RTI Cell,
Plot No. 32, Sector-14,Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110078. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 26/04/2022
Date of Decision : 26/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
1
RTI application filed on : 17/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 21/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 18/02/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2020 seeking the following information:
" 1) Action taken report regarding my compliant dated 5th March 2020 (File No. P-24017/50/2018-1PR-1) in respect of "Initiating inquiry against Kr Shri Sanjay Khandare, Asstt. Examiner of Trade Marks for submitting fake Degree certificate for getting promotion to the post of Assistant Examiner of Trade Marks- (copy enclosed for ready reference) (Annexure-I)
(a) Copies of Note sheets regarding (File No. P-24017/50/2018-IPR-1) after Page No.16 onwards (I am having I to 16 Pages received under RTI Act 2005 from Ministry).
(b) Copies of correspondence done with CGPDTM Office Mumbai or other offices if any regarding the compliant (File No. P-24017/50/2018-IPR-1)
2) Action taken report regarding my representation addressed to Shri Piyush Goyalji, Hon'ble Minister of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi and copies of correspondence done with CGPDTM Office Mumbai or any other offices if any, regarding the same.
3) I have decided to file a complaint before Central Vigilance Officer, DIIPT. New Delhi regarding Misuse of Hired Car as per Representations. Please supply following information to submit the same before CVO, DIIPT, New Delhi:-
a)Name & Designation of the Officer who is the overall in-charge of maintenance of CCTV Cameras situated in the building of Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi.
b) CCTV footage of Camera (in pen drive) situated at Entrance Main Gate of Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi for the period January 2016 to till date.2
c)Details regarding hiring of Car (for official purpose) - Whether the process of hiring of car done by calling Tender from Vendors or through GeM. (Government e-Marketplace) during the period January 2016 to till date.)
c) Copies of Tender document approved/Agreement done between Vendors & Head of the Office Trade Marks Registry & Copyright Office, New Delhi respectively for the period January 2016 to till date regarding Hiring of Car for Official purpose only.
d) Make & Model of hired Car, Vehicle number including copies of to book maintained by Car Driver of Hired Car both of TMR & Copyright Office. New Delhi separately for the period January 2016 to till date.
4) Name and Designation of the Officer working in Copyright Office, New Delhi who misused the hired car up to their residence and coming back to office daily by the same hired Car from the last 5-6 months (who retired on 30th June 2020) which belongs to Patent Office, New Delhi for performing day-today office work.
5) Whether Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Patent Office, New Delhi aware of the facts regarding misuse of hired Car of Patent Office by the Copyright Officer, New Delhi?
6) Whether any Transport Allowance was deducted from the monthly salary of such officer who misuses the hired car of Patent Office by DDO?
7) Name & Designation of Officer who permit the Copyright Officer (Gr. A. Gazatted) to use the hired car belongs to Patent Office New Delhi. Copy of Office Order issued by the Officer concerned for using hired car up to the residence and coming back to office by the same hired car without deducting Transport Allowance.
8) Name of the Group "A" Officers whose appointment was done against the point or post reserved for disability persons (PH). Please supply Copies of Disability Certificates submitted by the Officers as per norms framed by DPOT Orders and copy of Medical Report submitted by the Officers to the Office before joining the Post."
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 1 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 21.10.2020 stating as follows:-
3"2. In this regard, it is informed that information sought by you under Point (1), (1)(a) & (1)(b) is Personal information disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity/interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. It is also difficult to make out any larger public interest that would justify disclosure of such private information. Hence, denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Information sought under Point (2) of the RTI Application dated 17.09.2020 with respect to representation to Sh. Piyush Goyal, Hon'ble Minister of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi it is stated that such representation has not been received by this section yet.
4. It is further informed that information sought under point (3) to (8) of the RTI Application dated 17.09.2020 Application pertains to O/o CGPDTM. Hence, the said RTI application with respect to information sought under Point (3) to Point (8) is being transferred to the CPIO in the 0/o CGPDTM, Mumbai under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Further, the CPIO/ Respondent no. 3 furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.12.2020 against para No. 3(a), (b), (c)-(d) of the RTI application.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of specific information at para 3(c), 3(c) and 3(d) of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent no. 1: Piyush Garg, Assistant Controller & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Ms. Sunita, Asstt. Controller & CPIO present through video- conference.4
Respondent no. 3: Iqbal Singh Juneja, Deputy Registrar & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
No oral submissions as such have been tendered by the Appellant during the hearing.
The Respondent no. 1 submitted that apart from the averred reply, a revised point wise reply in response to point no. 3 along with relevant inputs has been furnished to the Appellant now vide written submission dated 20.04.2022.
The Respondent no. 3 submitted that points no. 3 & 4 of RTI Application pertains to their office and a timely response has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of records that the information sought by the Appellant including the CCTV footage and other related information at paras 3(c) - 3(d) contains elements of personal information of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent the initial denial of information by the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act. In this regard, 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, 5 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..."
Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO now intimating the factum of non- availability of records adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant in terms of RTI Act.
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter and submissions of the CPIOs are upheld.
However, in the interest of justice, the CPIOs i.e. Respondents no. 1 and 2 are directed to share a copy of their written submissions dated 20.04.2022 ,free of cost with the Appellant through email within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6