Central Information Commission
Sachin Sharad Naik vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 26 October, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NIFTY/A/2021/629935
In the matter of
Sachin Sharad Naik
... Appellant
VS
CPIO,
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),
NIFT Campus, Plot No. 15, Sector - 4,
Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410210
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 25/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 28/05/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 13/07/2021 Date of Hearing : 25/10/2022 Date of Decision : 25/10/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Khushal Jangid, Joint Director and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide a copy of quarterly report sent to NIFT HO for vacancy position by Estt. Dept., NIFT Mumbai for the quarter ended March 2018.1
2. Provide a copy of quarterly report sent to NIFT HO for vacancy position by Estt. Dept., NIFT Mumbai for the quarter ended March 2019.
3. Provide a copy of quarterly report sent to NIFT HO for vacancy position by Estt. Dept., NIFT Mumbai for the quarter ended March 2020.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information was incorrectly denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He pressed for penalty on the CPIO for an incorrect reply and on the FAA for not disposing of the first appeal.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 25.05.2021. On a query, he could not justify the exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He merely stated that the name and other details are personal in nature and they are there in the information sought.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that vide the letter dated 25.05.2021, the CPIO had denied the information on all the points u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, what is noted is that the information sought by the appellant is general in nature and cannot be construed as personal information of any third party nor treated as exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide the sought for information to the appellant in a point-wise manner as per the format available with them. The Commission considered the action of the CPIO incorrect however, no malafide intent could be found. It appears to be a misinterpretation of the RTI Act by the CPIO that he claimed Sec 8(1)(j) exemption in a blanket manner.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and provide the sought for information to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. While doing so, he can apply Sec 10 of the RTI Act and obliterate 2 the personal details. The CPIO is also cautioned to be careful in future to avoid penal action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3