Central Information Commission
Mohammad Ismail vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 6 December, 2022
CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993
In the matter of:
Mohammad Ismail ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Employees State Insurance
Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan,
Bhawani Singh Road
Jaipur 302001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.08.2021
CPIO replied on : 11.08.2021
First Appeal filed on : 19.08.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 28.09.2021
Second Appeal received on : 03.11.2021
Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri. Mohammad Ismail, participated in the hearing through
video conference from NIC Jhalawar
Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar, CPIO & Deputy Director, Employees
State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, RO-Jaipur, participated in
the hearing through video conference from NIC Jaipur
Page 1 of 9
CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.08.2021 seeking information on the following two points:
Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director (Administration), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur vide letter dated 11.08.2021, denied information to the Appellant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.09.2021, informed as under:Page 2 of 9
CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has arbitrarily denied the information sought under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission remarked that the information sought pertains to third party which is exempted from disclosure, so the Commission asked the Appellant to establish the larger public interest in seeking such information, to which the Appellant stated that the desired information pertains to his wife only. Upon being further queried by the Commission, the Appellant stated that he wants to defend his matrimonial case in the court. Commission interjected that for this purpose an alternate efficacious remedy is available.Page 3 of 9
CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 The Respondent submitted that information sought by the Appellant pertains to third party and the same is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, therefore the requisite information cannot be furnished to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Manish Sharma, CPIO & Assistant Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, Jaipur vide letter dated 24.11.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 4 of 9
CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 Page 5 of 9 CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is Page 6 of 9 CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of Page 7 of 9 CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 06.12.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 8 of 9 CIC/ESICO/A/2021/146993 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur 302001
2. The Central Public Information Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur 302001
3. Mohammad Ismail Page 9 of 9