Central Information Commission
P. K. Nandankar vs Food Corporation Of India on 9 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/FCIND/A/2019/100782
P K Nandankar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Food Corporation of India, ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Nagpur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02-08-2018 FA : 05-09-2018 SA: 04-01-2019
CPIO : 12-10-2018 FAO : 10-09-2018 Hearing: 04-06-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Food Corporation of India, Nagpur seeking following information:-
"1. A copy of permission of the competent authority of FCI to indulge in such illegal activity and filing writ and contempt petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench.
2. As a principle of natural justice, it is my right to know Shri N. B. Kodape's personal particulars like his Date of Birth, caste, residence etc. A copy of the school leaving certificate, his caste certificate and validity certificate may be provided."
2. The CPIO responded on 12-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 05-09-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 10-09- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 6Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. P K Nandankar participated in the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Meghraj Waghmare, Manager participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that Mr. N. B. Kodape had acquired his personal and private particulars as well as that of the other employees of the 'India Meteorological Department' by illegal means. Thereafter, Mr. N. B. Kodape sent a complaint to the Director General of 'India Meteorological Department', New Delhi and also filed the abovementioned petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench. According to Section 4 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations Act, 1971, an employee of the FCI requires prior permission of the competent authority before filing court cases against the Union of India. Despite this, Mr. N. B. Kodape is involved in such illegal activity and is allegedly acting on the guidance of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur for acquiring personal & private particulars of the tribal community through illegal means from various government departments with an intention to blackmail the employees. Therefore, he is seeking copy of the prior 'approval' taken by Mr. N. B. Kodape from the competent authority of FCI before filing the aforesaid writ and contempt petition(s) in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench.
5. The appellant also asked for the personal particulars of Mr. N. B. Kodape such as his school leaving certificate, caste certificate, date of birth, residence etc. In this regard, referring to the CIC's order dated 14-09-2009 in CIC/PB/A/2008/01247-SM, he submitted that the documents constituting the essential eligibility for appointment to the service of an organization cannot be claimed to be the personal and exempted information of an employee.
6. Reiterating their reply dated 12-10-2018, the respondent submitted that copy of the approval is 'not available' and the information sought on point no. 2 is personal in nature exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Decision:
7. This Commission observes that copy of the approval granted by the FCI for filing the aforesaid writ and contempt petition(s) in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur is official in nature which can be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the 'approval' if available upon a thorough search, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 2 of 68. However, the personal particulars of Mr. N. B. Kodape such as his school leaving certificate, caste certificate, date of birth, residential address etc. cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereby this sort of information has been treated as personal in nature exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the CIC's order dated 14-09-2009 in CIC/PB/A/2008/01247-SM is not applicable to the facts of this case.
9. This Commission observes that copy of the educational qualification certificate of some other employee available in the records of the public authority in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also, the appellant has not established any public interest in the matter except raising the allegation that Mr. N. B. Kodape had illegally obtained the personal particulars of other employees. This cannot be a ground for releasing copy of the school leaving certificate of Mr. N. B. Kodape. This legal position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 06-08- 2013 in the Civil Appeal No. 6362/2013 titled as UPSC v. Gourhari Kamila.
10. Further, this Commission observes that the 'date of birth' and 'caste certificate' of an individual employee is an exempted information as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no element of larger public interest has been established in the matter. This position has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P.(C) 5812/2010 titled as UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"5. In the present case, the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. There is no finding by the Commission that it was in larger public interest to disclose the aforesaid personal information of the recommended candidates. Even in his application seeking information, the respondent did not claim that any larger public interest was involved in disclosing the aforesaid information. In the absence of such a claim in the application and a finding to this effect by the Commission, no direction for disclosure of the aforesaid personal information could have been given."
11. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 01-07-2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016 titled as Baljeet Singh v. The Pio, Industrial Training Institute, Jahangirpuri &Anr has observed as follows:-
Page 3 of 6"11. In the case in hand, the respondent no.2 has sought the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The information is a personal information as the caste to which the petitioner belongs is an issue inter-se between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner i.e. between employer and employee and this aspect is governed by service rules. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. In fact, it is held so by a Coordinate Bench of this court in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, W.P.(C) 5812/2010 decided on November 8, 2013."
12. Educational qualification certificates, 'date of birth' and residential address of the third party has been treated as 'personal information' exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 31-10-2013 in WP (C) No. 677/2013 & CM No. 1293 of 2013 titled as Union of India v. Anita Singh, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"4. The passport of Mr. Ajeet Singh would have his personal information such as the address, date of birth and the name of his parents. The information such as date of birth and residential address of the passport holder would constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which cannot be disclosed to the respondents. Since neither the respondent sought disclosure of the said documents in special circumstances such as existence of any public interest nor the Commission recording finding that the larger public interest required disclosure of the said information to him, the said information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. However, the passport number and the date of issue and expiry of the passport can be provided to him. The birth certificate of Mr. Ajeet Singh as well as the documents of his education and the documents submitted by him as proof of his residential address are personal information which cannot be disclosed to the respondent, particularly when no special circumstances warranting such disclosure were indicated in the application nor did the Commission came to the conclusion that disclosure of the aforesaid personal information was warranted in the larger public interest."
13. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enumerated in the abovementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the personal particulars of Mr. N. B. Kodape such as his school leaving certificate, caste certificate, date of birth, residential address etc. cannot be provided to the appellant.
14. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 615. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta ( )
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)
दिनांक / Date 04-06-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत)
S. C. Sharma (एस. स . ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
Food Corporation of India, Manager (RTI) &
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, District Office, Ajni,
Nagpur, Maharashtra -15.
2. P K Nandankar,
Page 6 of 6