Central Information Commission
Upasna Kapoor vs Edcil (India) Limited on 17 June, 2022
CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674
In the matter of:
Upasna Kapoor ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
EdCIL (India) Limited, EdCIL
House, 18 A, Sec 16 A, Noida,
UP-201301
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.01.2021
CPIO replied on : 14.01.2021
First Appeal filed on : 18.01.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17.02.2021
Second Appeal received on : 24.02.2021
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Upasna Kapoor, participated in the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, DGM & CPIO, participated in the hearing
in person.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.01.2021 seeking information on the following four points:
The CPIO vide online reply dated 14.01.2021, denied information to the Appellant as under:
"The information sought by you in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Babbar is related to third party & personal information and this information is kept under fiduciary relationship and hence exempted under section 8(e), 8(g) & 8(j) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.01.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.02.2021, informed as under:Page 2 of 6
CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action and disciplinary action against the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that she has not received the relevant information qua the instant RTI Application from the Respondent. She further added that she requires the requisite information for her ongoing matrimonial dispute pending against her deserted husband i.e. Mr. Anil Kumar Babbar.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is seeking third party information in the instant RTI Application and vide letter dated 05.02.2021, they have invoked the provision of Section 11 (1) of the RTI act for seeking dissent/consent of the concerned third party and vide letter dated 09.02.2021, the concerned third party has expressed his dissent to share the information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 6
CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party who has expressed his dissent to share his personal information to the Appellant and accordingly the Respondent has rightly denied the information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under: "16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
Page 4 of 6
CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 17.06.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) R.P. Grover (आर.पी. ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/EDCIL/A/2021/108674 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) EdCIL (India) Limited, EdCIL House, 18 A, Sec 16 A, Noaida, UP-201301
2. The Central Public Information Officer EdCIL (India) Limited, EdCIL House, 18 A, Sec 16 A, Noida, UP-201301
3. Mrs. Upasna Kapoor Page 6 of 6