Central Information Commission
Shravan vs Niper, Hyderabad on 17 May, 2024
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/NIPHY/A/2023/605955
Shravan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Institute of
Pharmaceuticals Education ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
and Research, Hyderabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.07.2022 FA : 29.07.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 25.07.2022 FAO : 17.11.2022 Hearing : 16.05.2024
Date of Decision: 16.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2022 seeking application copies of shortlisted candidates for Tier II examination NIPER held through notification NIPER- HYD/01/2021-22 for the examinations held for post code NT-003, NT-004, NT-005, NT- 006, NT-007.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-Page 1 of 4
"The information sought cannot be provided under the provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Manoj Dhote, Administrative Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 25.07.2022. He stated that the information sought was related to third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 25.07.2022. The Commission notes that the Appellant has sought for the personal information of a third party, which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 Page 2 of 4 Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; 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..."
8. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 16.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) National Institute of pharmaceuticals Education and Research, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500037 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)