Central Information Commission
Avinash Kumar Punia vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 13 June, 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/CBECE/A/2022/122565
Avinash Kumar Punia अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(RTI),
O/O THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, VADODARA ZONE, RTI
CELL, 2ND FLOOR, CENTRAL
EXCISE BUILDING, RACE COURSE
CIRCLE, VADODARA-390007,
GUJARAT. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/03/2023
Date of Decision : 13/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 03/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 03/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 21/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/05/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2021 seeking the information:
"Sir, I am working as Superintendent, CGST, Division-XI, Nadiad, Vadodara-I. On 06.11.2020, I was transferred on administrative ground from Silvassa to CCO, Vadodara by Estt. Order No-93/2020 dated 06.11.2020 and was directed to join CCO and meet the then Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone on 09.11.2020. Upon meeting with the then Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone on 09.11.2020, I was informed by then CC sir that one girl Pratika Mahala has filed complaint and an FIR against me. Since then, I have learnt that Miss Pratika Mahala has filed several other complaints against me to Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone.
Sir, the said Miss Pratika Mahala is harming my reputation and position in office and has filed motivated complaints against me with the sole motive to settle a private dispute between her father and my wife Rekha Punia, as both of them are partners of a firm floated by them. Sir, through her letter addressed and submitted to Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone in early 2021, my wife Rekha Punia has already informed to CC sir the background and reason behind filing of complaints against me by Miss Pratika Mahala. Sir, I am in no way associated with the dispute between complainant Pratika Mahala's father and my wife Rekha Punia w.r.t their firm and I am being targeted solely because I am a public servant and husband of Rekha Punia, partner of Pratika Mahala's father.
Sir, I have decided to approach Court to file a defamation case against Miss Pratika Mahala for filing baseless and motivated complaints (against me) which have nothing to do with discharge of my official duties.
In order to file defamation case in court against her, I need copies of all complaints filed by Miss Pratika Mahala with your office. Sir, I sincerely request you to provide me with certified and attested copies of all complaints filed by Miss Pratika Mahala against me with your office."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.01.2022 by stating as under:
"The information sought by Shri Avinash Kumar Punta, cannot be disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(e), Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 21.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Milind Gatkare, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio/video conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that he was working as superintendent, CGST, Division-Xl, Nadiad, Vadodara and on 05.11.2020, he was transferred on administrative ground from Silvassa to office of Chief Commissioner, CGsT, Vadodara Zone by Estt. Order No 93/2020 dated 05.11.2020 and was directed to join cco and meet the then Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone on 09.11.2020. Upon meeting with the then Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone he was being informed by then Chief Commissioner that one Miss Praiika Mahala filed complaint and an FIR against him. Since then, he came to know that Miss Pratika Mahala filed several other complaints against him to Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara. As per his allegation Miss Pratika Mahala was harming his reputation and position in office and has filed motivated complaints with sole motive to settle a private dispute between her father and my wife Rekha Punia, as both of them are partner of a firm floated by them. Therefore, in order to file a defamation case against concerned lady, the Appellant has sought the certified and attested copies of all complaints filed against him. However, he is aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO ignoring the fact that he was an affected party and such complaints were going to hamper his official position and in turn affects his promotion.
The CPIO reiterated his denial of information under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of RTI Act with the plea that since a case pertaining to complaint against Appellant was already sub-judice before the Court of law; therefore, information at this stage cannot be shared with the Appellant. In response to it, the Appellant interjected to contest that the court case which was referred to by the CPIO has no bearing with the complaints which has been sought in the instant matter.3
In conclusion, the Appellant also harped on the inaction of the Respondent authority in non- disposal of pending complaints against him despite a delay of more than two years which is in violation of relevant OMs of DoPT.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after hearing the submissions of both the parties observes at the outset that the applicability of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not pertinent in the matter and appears to be rather laboured. Concededly, the identity of Miss Pratika Mahala is already known to the Appellant and the CPIO has not explained whose life and physical safety or source of information is being protected under the garb of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act does not become operative on the mere apprehension of information being held by Respondent Authority under fiduciary capacity. For the sake of clarity, contents of Section 8(1)(e) is reproduced below-
"(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;.."
Nonetheless, while the Commission empathizes with the case of the Appellant wherein as per his version, he may be entitled to file a suit for defamation before the Court of Law, but the fact remains that the same pertains to a third party's complaint with the concerned wing of Respondent authority, disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of the said individual's privacy and therefore stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The protection afforded under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to the personal information of a third party cannot be lifted unless there is an overriding larger public interest, which is the only exception to the rule. 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 4 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..."
Now, as regards, Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought for speculative information without specifying any record. For the said reasons and considering the square applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as explained above, the merits of the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is also inconsequential in the matter.
Furthermore, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the inaction of Respondent Public Authority in not disposing the complaints even after a lapse of more than two years is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. Here, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the 5 Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds that in the absence of any larger public interest, the information sought for in the RTI Application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and no relief can be ordered in the matter.
The CPIO is advised to acquaint himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act before invoking the exemption clauses for denying any information in the future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6