Central Information Commission
Esmeralda M Barretto vs Indian Navy on 17 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/INAVY/A/2024/631355
Esmeralda M Barretto ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO
Headquarter,
Goa Naval Area,
Vasco Da Gama,
Goa-403802
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026
Date of Decision : 17.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 15.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 05.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's : 19.04.2024
order
Second Appeal dated : 23.07.2024
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"It has been observed the Mr Antonio Maximiano Pereira R/o.113, Mangor, Vasco da Gama, Goa has been issued N.O.C. by your office Ref No.46/210/1/2022/366 dated 16 Dec 22 for existing retaining was in property bearing Chalta No.116 of P.T.Sheet No.149 of Dabolim Village around Dabolim Airport, Mormugao, Taluka, South Goa.
It is therefore request to kindly furnish me certified copies of Application along with all the encloses submitted by Mr. Antonio Maximiano Pereira to obtain N.O.C from your office".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.03.2024 stating as under:
" 1) Refer to your RTI application No. nil dated 22/02/24 received in this Headquarters on 23 Feb 24.
2) On scrutiny of your RTI application, it is observed that the information sought by you does not involve larger public interest which justifies the disclosure of information. The information being personal and third party information cannot be disclosed as the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of RTI act 2005.
4) Your RTI application, under reference stands disposed of".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 05.04.2024. The FAA vide its order on 19.04.2024 stated as under:
"1) Refer to following: -
(a) Your appeal no nil dated 05/04/24 received in this Headquarters on 08 Apr 2024.
(b) HQGNA letter PIO/5408/RTI (Vol. IIl) dated 15 Mar 24.
(c) Your RTI application no nil dated 22/02/24 received in this Headquarters 23 Feb 24.
2) APIO vide letter PIO/5408/RTI (Vol. III) dated 15 Mar 24 had disposed of your RTI application dated 22/02/24, inter alia, intimating that the information sought by you does not involve larger public interest which justifies the disclosure of information. The information being personal and third party Page 2 of 5 information cannot be disclosed as the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
3) The undersigned being the First Appellate Authority had examined your First Appeal and re-examined APIO decision rejecting your RTI application. As a First Appellate Authority it is intimated that you may approach MPDA for the details of NOC issued to Mr. Antonio Maximiano Pereira."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mrs. Esmeralda M Barretto Respondent: Mr. Johnson Mendis, CPIO, Judge Advocate
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought pertains to an NOC issued to her neighbour, and the construction/activity undertaken on the basis of the said NOC has resulted in blockage of her access/road. She alleged that Mr. Antonio Maximiano Pereira had obtained the NOC by submitting false documents. She contended that the information is directly related to her property rights and is therefore required by her to understand the legality of the NOC granted.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertains to a third party and includes personal details and documents submitted by such third party. It was argued that the disclosure of the same is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as no public interest has been demonstrated by the appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that while the information sought undoubtedly relates to a third party, the Commission notes that the appellant claiming to have a direct and proximate nexus with the subject matter of the information. The grievance raised by the appellant pertains to alleged obstruction of access Page 3 of 5 to her property due to an NOC granted by the Respondent public authority. Therefore, the information sought cannot be treated as wholly unrelated or purely personal in nature, as it has a bearing on the appellant's civil rights and legitimate interests.
At the same time, the Commission is mindful of the need to balance the right to information with the right to privacy of the third party. The RTI Act does not envisage indiscriminate disclosure of personal information, particularly where such disclosure may result in unwarranted invasion of privacy.
In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by adopting a balanced approach. Accordingly, instead of directing outright disclosure of all documents, the respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of the relevant records by the appellant and provide copies of documents which can be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. During such disclosure, the respondent shall ensure that personal details or sensitive information of the third party, which are not germane to the issue of grant of NOC or the alleged obstruction, are suitably redacted.
In view of the same, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records pertaining to the NOC in question, after redacting any personal or sensitive information not relevant to the issue. The inspection shall be facilitated within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, on a mutually convenient date and time, under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
-sd-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 17.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Page 4 of 5 (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Headquarter, Goa Naval Area, Vasco Da Gama, Goa-403802
2. Esmeralda M Barretto Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)