Central Information Commission
Vinod Yadav vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 4 November, 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/DVCOR/A/2022/105989
Vinod Yadav ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Koderma Thermal Power Plant,
RTI Cell, Banjhedih, Koderma,
Jharkhand-825421 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/11/2022
Date of Decision : 03/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 18/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video- conference.
Respondent: Ashish Kumar, Dy. Director (HR) & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that complete desired information has not been provided to him till date.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.10.2022 ; extracts of which are reproduced as under -
".....1.07.10.2021 (RTI Application Receiving Date): An RTI application dated 06.10.2021 was submitted by Shri Vinod Yadav, Gumo Barwadih, Koderma for seeking information and copy regarding, Details on Safety Equipment's, Payment Chart, Gate Pass, Educational Qualification, Category (Unskilled-
Semi Skilled), Joining Date, Name 86 Address of Labor etc. i.r.o. of Contract workers engaged in particular Contractor Agency ( pg.1,2).
2. 30.10.2021 (RTI Application Disposal Date): On receipt of application, a copy of reply containing information in 05 pages, as received from deemed PIO's, has been extended to applicant vide letter No. KT/PL/RTI (Vinod Yadav 06102021)/21/-555 dated 30.10.2021. Extract of reply is reproduced below for reference -
3. 02.12.2021 (Resend copy of the Reply): The undersigned has been communicated by the Jt. Director (HR), 0/o ED (HR) 86 FAA, DVC, Kolkata vide mail dtd. 01.12.2021 that applicant has filed an appeal against RTI application dtd. 06.10.2021, on the ground of not providing any information within the stipulated time period. Further requested to furnish the status of case with copy of the reply to 0/o of ED(HR) 86 FAA. Accordingly, the copy of reply which was earlier sent to applicant vides no. 555 dtd. 30.10.2021 mailed to O/o of ED(HR) 8; FAA. Also, copy of reply again extended to 3 applicant through post (EJ830776585IN) letter vide no. KT/PL/RTI (Vinod Yadav 06102021)/21/-650 dated 02.12.2021 (pg. 8-10).
4. It may kindly be noted that the aforesaid RTI application was disposed within stipulated time. Further, when the matter of 'non-receipt of information by applicant' has been communicated to undersigned vide mail dtd. 01.12.2021, the copy of reply was resent on 02.12.2021 to the applicant and O/o of the ED(HR) &, FAA for their further needful.
5. xxxxxxx....."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application observes that the details of payment charts and qualifications of contract workers as majorly sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application at points no. 2,3,4,5,7,8 and 9 contains the elements of personal information of such workers which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 4 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..."
Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO on all the points is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
However, considering the prayer of the Appellant the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply along with readily available information in the form of absolute / numeric figures as in like 'total amount/ payments' made to the labour/ contract workers against point no. 1 and also in response to all the other points of RTI Application in the same fashion, without divulging the personal details of third parties. While providing a revised reply, the severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The above said reply and information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6