Central Information Commission
S B Anil vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai ... on 22 November, 2022
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 : CIC/CUSCZ/A/2021/662607
S B ANIL ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office ofthe Pc Commissioner
OfCustoms (General),
Chennai-V I, RTI Cell, Custom
House, No. 60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600001, Tamilnadu .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/11/2022
Date of Decision : 21/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 19/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 30/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking the following information:
"xxx 1
1. Consolidated seniority list of Appraisers for Chennai Customs Zone as on date wef 01.04.2002 till 31.03.2021.
2. Consolidated seniority list of Examiners under Chennai Customs Zone(including interse seniority) as on 01.12.2002 valid as on 31.03.2021.
3. Roster points for promotion of Examiners Seniority List for reservation as SC/ST in the above-mentioned seniority list.
4. The number of posts and the names of the officers who were eligible for promotion as per reservation under ST quota from the above-mentioned Seniority list of Examiners.
5. Whether the applicant was an eligible candidate for promotion on the relevant date or as per the instructions of DOPT /Hon'ble SC orders on a later date.
6. Whether any Review DPC was held to rectify the errors ,if so the office orders passed consequent to the DPC.
7. Whether the MRCP orders have been issued by the Chennai Custom Zone for Appraisers from the year 2005 to 2020, if so, copies of the same to be supplied 8. Whether the applicant has been considered for MACP at the relevant time, if not the reasons maybe supplied."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 19.08.2021 as under:-
"............this office is in the process of getting the information sought by you in your said RTI application. The sought information will be forwarded to you as soon as the same is received by this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.08.2021. FAA's order dated 27.09.2021 held as under:-
"......I direct the CPIO to furnish the available/providable information in his custody within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and caution the CPIO to adhere to the time limit in future. However, the appellant is at liberty to file fresh appeal if the reply of the CPIO is not satisfactory."2
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO replied to the appellant on 13.10.2021 as under:-
"2. The information sought is in respect of 8 categories for a period of almost 20 years Obtaining such huge voluminous information is a very tough time consuming exercise and needs a lot of work force. Moreover, in the case of S.K. Lai Vs Ministry of Railways (Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00268-272 29.12.2006) the applicant had filed multiple applications to the railway authorities asking for "all the records" regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. The Public authority, however, did not provide him with the information requested. The Central Information Commission has observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of applications. The CIC, field that seeking huge information for all the records" regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways, "only amounts to making a mockery of the Act".
3. It is informed that the information requested in this RTI application i.e 8 types of information for more than 19 years period is huge and requires lot of work force to be roped in. Seeking of seniority list of officers of a particular cadre by the RTI applicant, it appears that there is no larger public interest involved in seeking such information but only the vested interest in seeking information on the service matters which concerns the benefit & prospects of the officers of the department, where the same had been internally circulated to all concerned and attained finality by receipt of representation, if any, and rectification of the justified errors, if any pointed therein.
4. Hence this RTI application is disposed off based on the above mentioned CIC judgement."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....The application sought by me vide the above application was rejected the authorities quoting the appeal no CIC/OK/A/2006/00268-272 Dated 29/12/2016- multiple applications to the railway authorities asking for all the records regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways.3
I have not asked for huge information related to various services. I have asked for Consolidated seniority list of appraisers for Chennai customs zone from 01/04/2012 till 31/03/2021 & consolidated seniority list of Examiners under Chennai customs zone as on 01/12/2002 valid as on 31/03/2021 and related 6 queries. None of the information was provided including the Seniority lists of officers and information regarding roster points which are the mandatory documents to be maintained by public authorities...."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ranjit, Asst. Commissioner & CPIO present through video- conference.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply provided to the Appellant in compliance with FAA's order by explaining the fact that the information sought by the Appellant was of a time span of 20 years and also of 8 categories which seems to voluminous in nature; collation and compilation of which would definitely divert the resources of the Respondent Public Authority. Thus, the factual position has already been intimated to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Application is in agreement with the submission made by the CPIO during hearing that the information sought by the Appellant is majorly vague and indeterminate and also seems to be voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which would definitely the resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."4
Moreover, the Commission also cannot loose its sight of the fact that the Consolidated seniority list of appraisers for Chennai customs zone from 01/04/2012 till 31/03/2021 & consolidated seniority list of Examiners under Chennai customs zone as on 01/12/2002 valid as on 31/03/2021 contains the elements of third party's officers/examiners disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & 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, 5 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..."
In view of the above and considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to buttress his case, the Commission finds no scope of further action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6