Central Information Commission
Avishek Palit vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 April, 2022
CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509
In the matter of:
Avishek Palit ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, Plot No 222, Sector 3
Charkop Market, Boraspada Rd,
Charkop, Kandivali West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 25.06.2020
CPIO replied on : 22.07.2020
First Appeal filed on : 23.09.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint received on : 23.11.2020
Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Respondent: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Page 1 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed online RTI application dated 25.06.2020 seeking information as under:
The CPIO vide online reply dated 22.07.2020, informed the Complainant as under:
"Third Party information involved as on 22.07.2020."Page 2 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 25.9.2020, forwarded the First Appeal to the concerned First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. The Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to share the requested EPF statement of his wife Moumita Ghosh from April 2020 till date.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
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 instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate reply qua the instant RTI Application as the Complainant is seeking personal information of a third party. 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 Page 3 of 6 CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509 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 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 transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Page 4 of 6CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509 Be that as it may, the Commission further observes the Respondent has not appeared before the Commission. In fact, the Respondent has not even bothered to intimate the Commission regarding the reason for his non-appearance In view of the above, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. Hence, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a written explanation to the Commission for the non-appearance and the aforesaid written explanation should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated by the Commission against the present CPIO.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 18.04.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/EPFOG/C/2020/136509 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Plot No 222, Sector 3 Charkop Market, Boraspada Rd, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 067
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Plot No 222, Sector 3 Charkop Market, Boraspada Rd, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400 067
3. Mr. Avishek Palit Page 6 of 6