Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 20 October, 2021
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: As per Annexure
Nutan Thakur ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department Of Personnel &
Training, RTI Cell, North Block,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/10/2021
Date of Decision : 14/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred cases have been clubbed for decision as the Appellant
has sought for similar information in all the cases.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
S.No. File No. RTI CPIO Reply First FAA Order Appeal
Application Appeal filed on
filed on filed on
1. 104742 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
1
2. 104734 21.10.2019 01.11.2019 27.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
3. 104735 10.10.2019 24.10.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
4. 104736 10.10.2019 23.10.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
5. 104738 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
6. 104741 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
7. 104742 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
8. 104743 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
9. 104744 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
10. 104746 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
11. 104747 21.10.2019 01.11.2019 27.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
12. 104748 21.10.2019 01.11.2019 27.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
13. 104749 21.10.2019 01.11.2019 27.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
14. 104751 21.10.2019 01.11.2019 27.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
15. 104752 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
16. 104754 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 28.11.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
17. 104755 10.10.2019 23.10.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
18. 104756 10.10.2019 23.10.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
19. 104759 10.10.2019 23.10.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
2
20. 104760 10.10.2019 23.10.2019 09.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
21. 104762 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
22. 104763 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
23. 104765 10.10.2019 10.11.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
24. 104766 10.10.2019 19.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
25. 104767 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
26. 104769 10.10.2019 19.11.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
27. 104770 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
28. 104771 10.10.2019 01.11.2019 11.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
29. 104780 10.10.2019 20.11.2019 10.12.2019 16.01.2020 27.01.2020
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104742
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:3
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 6:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104741 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:4
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104740 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:5
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 6:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as under:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.6
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104736 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
"......... documents/correspondences/files noting related to and creation of minutes of the meetings for the purpose of selection of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, IPS(AGMU:1979) as CBI chief, the authorship of such documents which include 3 high level dignitaries does not vest in the Department of Personnel & Training. Thus, copies of the said documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO.
3. It is further informed that a copy of the same RTI applications has already been received/forwarded to the concerned CP1O of MHA & CVC for providing the requisite information as available with them. However, a copy 7 of the same is also being forwarded to them with the request to provide the information, if any, to you directly."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104780 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 20.11.2019 that:
"............ no such information is available with the undersigned CPIO of this Division."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
8CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104735 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information;
The CPIO informed the appellant on 24.10.2019 that:
".............the file containing the requisite documents has been marked as Secret. Hence, the same cannot be provided to you. However, a copy of this Department's order dated 23.10.2017 appointing Shri Rakesh Asthana, IPS(GJ;1984) as Special Director- in CBI is annexed for your information".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
9CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104771 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as under:-
10"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104734 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking the following information;
11The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
12CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104770 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:-
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that;
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as under:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-13
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104769 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
14The CPIO informed the appellant on 19.11.2019 that:
"........information sought by you does not come in the purview of the concerned CPIO of this Division as the matter pertains other than CBI administration. Hence, a copy of your RTI application dated 14.10.2019 is being forwarded to concerned CPIO of MHA for providing the necessary information, if any, directly to applicant."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 FAA's observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
15CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104767 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.16
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104766 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 19.11.2019 that:
".....reply of the similar RTI applications bearing registration No. DOP&T/R/2019/83006 (forwarded by MHA) dated 10.10.2019 and 17 DOP&T/R/2019/55990 dated 10.10.2019 has already been forwarded to you vide this Department's letter dated 23.10.2019. However, a copy of reply dated 23.10.2019 is again being enclosed for your information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104765 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."18
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as under:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104763 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
19The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 6:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104762 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
20The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 6:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.21
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104760 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
"........documents/correspondences/files noting related to and creation of minutes of the meetings, the authorship of such documents which include 3 high level dignitaries does not vest in the Department of Personnel & Training. Thus, 22 copies of the said documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO. However, a copy of order dated 10.01.2019 issued by this Department in this regard is enclosed for your information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104759 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
"...........documents/correspondences/files noting related to and creation of minutes of the meetings for the purpose of selection of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, IPS(AGMU:1979) as CBI chief, the authorship of such documents which include 3 high level dignitaries does not vest in the Department of Personnel & Training. Thus, copies of the said documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO.
3. It is further informed that a copy of the same RTI applications has already been received/forwarded to the concerned CPIO of MHA & CVC for providing the requisite information as available with them. However, a copy of the same is also being forwarded to them with the request to provide the information, if any, to you directly."23
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104756 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
"...........documents/correspondences/files noting related to and creation of minutes of the meetings for the purpose of selection of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, IPS(AGMU:1979) as CBI chief, the authorship of such documents which include 3 high level dignitaries does not vest in the Department of Personnel & Training. Thus, copies of the said documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO.
3. It is further informed that a copy of the same RTI applications has already been received/forwarded to the concerned CPIO of MHA & CVC for providing the requisite information as available with them. However, a copy of the same is also being forwarded to them with the request to provide the information, if any, to you directly."24
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104755 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
".............the file containing the requisite documents has been marked as Secret. Hence, the same cannot be provided to you. However, a copy of this Department's order dated 23.10.2017 appointing Shri Rakesh Asthana, IPS(GJ;1984) as Special Director in CBI is enclosed herewith for your information(copy enclosed)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104738 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
25The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 6:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.26
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104754 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
27The CPIO informed the appellant on 23.10.2019 that:
"............reply to the similar RTI application bearing registration No. DOP&T/R/2019/55991 dated 10.10.2019 has already been forwarded to you vide this Department's letter No. 258/5/2019-AVD-II dated 23.10.2019. However, a copy of reply dated 23.10.2019 is again being enclosed for your information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104752 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.28
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104751 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking the following information:
29The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 10:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as under:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.30
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104749 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 10:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.31
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104748 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking the following information:
32The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 10:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.33
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104747 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:34
"Point Nos. 1 to 10:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 observed as follows:-
"...... the CPIO has properly attended the RTI request 10.10.2019 of Dr. Nutan Thakur, applicant, and also gave a reply on 01.11.2019. The CPIO has informed that:-
a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exempted organisation as per Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.
b) The information related to Departmental/enquiry against an individual is an information personal to that individual which is exempted under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) Under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of prosecution offenders, is not required to be provided.
d) Further, CPIO is required to provide only such information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 that already exists in material form and is held by the Public Authority.
In view of the above provisions, the information sought by the applicant is not being provided by the CPIO. It may be noted that RTI application has also been marked to other CPIOs also, who may have some relevant information to provide."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104746 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
35The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104744 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
36The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that:
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104743 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking the following information:
37The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.11.2019 that;
"Point Nos. 1 to 7:- (i) Information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) Information denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iii) Information denied under section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 16.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
38Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio conference) Respondent: Ganga Kumar Sinha, US & CPIO along with Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIOs submitted that most of the instant cases have been already decided by the Commission vide File Nos. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101586 + etc. and CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/152048 + etc. by this bench as well as the bench of the Chief Information Commissioner and there is nothing further to add other than what has been already been stated in the records.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant set of cases are squarely covered by the decision of this bench dated 14.06.2021 in a set of 14 Appeal(s) heard against DoPT, CVC & MHA vide File No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/152048 + etc., relevant extracts of which is reproduced hereunder:
"Having perused the case records in detail, at the outset, the Commission took note of a recent decision passed by the bench of the Chief Information Commissioner on 03.06.2021 in another set of Appeals of the Appellant (viz. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101586 + etc.) against all three departments viz. CVC, MHA & DoPT and premised on identical categories of information referred to in the instant RTI Application(s) i.e concerning the service matter of Rakesh Asthana and Alok Verma. In a nutshell, the said decision of 03.06.2021 highlights upon the repetitive nature of Appellant's multiple RTI Applications and their impact on the functioning of the public authorities. In addition to emphasizing on the aspect of misuse of the RTI Act, the bench also held that all of the information sought for regarding the averred officials amounts to seeking their personal information as understood under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
XXX Decision 39 The Commission having observed that the issues emanating for determination in the instant set of Appeals relates to the disclosure of information about the appointment/removal of the averred CBI Director and other CBI officials or the gamut of instances referred to in between i.e for instance, the alleged complaints filed by Alok Verma against R K Asthana and action taken thereupon etc. has been in principle dealt with by the coordinate bench in the decision of 03.06.2021 (supra). For the said reasons, this bench of the Commission does not find any reason to depart from the view taken by the coordinate bench that the information sought for stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of larger public interest subsisting in the matter, rather in the face of plausible speculation and media trial upon disclosure of information of such magnitude, the protected interests of the privacy of these officers outweighs any perceivable instance of public interest. With respect to the aspect of larger public interest, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012].....
XXX As it follows, in the considered opinion of this bench the Appellant has not urged larger public interest in any of the above referred contexts, and therefore the Commission is not in a position to ascribe any credence to her contentions.
Adverting to the foregoing discussion, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in the instant set of Appeal(s) as all of it pertains to service-related aspects of various third parties, disclosure of which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of these individuals. In this regard, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further exemplified....
XXX Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in 40 Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 while explaining the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to the above discussed judgments and observed as under.....
In view of the foregoing, no action is warranted in the instant cases."
Further, a number of RTI Applications seeking the same information from CBI were also heard and decided by this bench on 26.08.2021 in a series of Appeal(s) filed by the Appellant, where again the repetitiveness of these RTI Applications was emphasized upon in the following words:
"It is pertinent to note that the instant set of cases also suggest sheer repetitiveness and the information sought for in the RTI Application(s) does not even pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation per se, rather seeks unspecific statistics related to varied nature of cases dealt with against the employees of CBI."
Having adjudicated on cases pertaining to the same subject matter and identical RTI queries as well as the same public authorities over and over again, the Commission finds no reason to decide the instant set of cases on merits and deems it fit to summarily dismiss the same as being an instance of gross misuse of the RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised to exercise her right to information in a judicious manner in the future.
The appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 41 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 42 ANNEXURE S.No. FILE Nos.
1. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104742
2. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104741
3. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104740
4. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104736,
5. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104780,
6. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104735,
7. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104771,
8. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104734,
9. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104770,
10. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104769,
11. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104767,
12. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104766,
13. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104765,
14. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104763,
15. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104760,
16. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104759,
17. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104756,
18. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104755,
19. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104738,
20. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104754,
21. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104752,
22. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104751,
23. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104749,
24. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104748,
25. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104747,
26. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104746,
27. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104744
28. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/104743 43