Central Information Commission
Daya Pandey vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 9 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCEMT/A/2024/604746 & CIC/CCEMT/A/2024/604752
Ms. Daya Pandey .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Asst. Commissioner,
Customs & CGST, Meerut Zone,
Opposite CCS University, Mangal
Pandey Nagar, Meerut - 250005 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.07.2025
Date of Decision : 08.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCEMT/A/2024/604746
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 08.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.02.2024
Information sought:
Page 1 of 12
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 01.06.2023 seeking
the following information:
"Please refer to the Annual General Transfer 2023 in respect of Group B
(Gazetted/Non Gazetted Officers of the Meerut Zone. Please provide the
History of posting of all the Group -B (Gazetted and Non Gazetted
Officers) as maintained in office of Chief Commissioner, Meerut Zone and
on the basis of which the AGT-2023 was done vide orders dated
30.05.2023. Please provide the same at my email Id [email protected]
in pdf file separately for Inspectors and Superintendents of the Zone."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 08.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.11.2023, held as
under.
"I have carefully gone through the appellant's RTI application
CCEMT/R/E/23/00053 dated 01/06/2023 and the grounds of instant
appeal made by the appellant in the RTI appeal dated 08/10/2023.
I find that the appellant was also granted an opportunity to present his
case before the First Appellant Authority on 27/10/2023 either through
physical or virtual mode but the appellant failed to attend the personal
hearing.
I proceed further to discuss the facts on records available.
(i). in this regard, it is again intimated that the History of Posting of all
the Group B (Gazetted and Non Gazetted Officers) are maintained by
their respective formations and not by this office. However, copies of
these HOPs are available in this office, on going through these History of
Postings, it has been found that these History of Postings contains
personal information in respect of individual officer such as Father'
name, PAN, Aadhar, Mobile No., Residential address, spouse
employment etc."
(ii) As per Section 11 of the Right of Information Act, 2005, before
disclosing the confidential information to third party, consent of the
individual is required. Hence, letter to all the Gr. B officers posted in
Meerut zone has been issued to forward their consent to this office so
that requisite information may be provided to Ms Daya Pandey.
However, only one officer Shri T.J. Bhotia, Inspector submitted his
consent for sharing the information. Some of the officers submitted that
their History of Posting may be shared with the applicant masking their
Page 2 of 12
personal information. In this regard, it is informed that the intention and
purpose of RTI was that information should not be created. In various
orders, judicial authorities clearly mentioned that information should not
be prepared by fishing exercise. Masking of personal information in the
History of Posting means creating/ hiding the information available in
that sheet. This office does not maintain information in form and manner
as sought by the applicant without the personal information of the
officers.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( No. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Annr Vs
Aditya Bandopadhyaya@rs has held that
Ast 35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions
about the RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and
existing. This is clear from a om a combined reading of section 3 and the
definitions of information and right to information' under clauses and of
section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form
of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, applicant may access
such information, subject to the exemptions in section an But where the
information sought is not a part of record of a public authority, and
action & of the Act. where such information is not required to be
maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public
authority, the Act does not cost an obligation upon the public authority,
to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to
an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish
information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of
assumptions is also not required to provide advice or opinion' to an
applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion advice to an
applicant.
Similarly the Central Information Commission, New Delhi-110006 in
decision no CIC/SB/A/2015/000165 dated 24.10.2016 has held that
"The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and
perusing the records, observes that session wise result as sought by the
appellant is not compiled and maintained by the respondent. Hence,
collating and compiling such information would disproportionately divert
the resources of the respondent organization"
In case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India Vs Commodore Lokesh K
Batra&Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM Mo. 965/2015, it was held that
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4/1 Nal and Section 2, it appears
to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner
Page 3 of 12
which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already
noticed above, right to information' under Section 25 means only the
right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find
any other prosision 3 under the Act under which a direction can be issued
to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which
is sought by the applicant."
(iii). As per Section 7/9) of the RTI Act, 2005, "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 obreservation of the record in question". In
the case of Dr. R. S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi vide LPA No.207/2020 dated 31.8.2020 was held that the
disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public
activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to
explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and
the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view,
in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest,
disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the
information sought for is for any public interest, much less larger public
interest'. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Therefore, I proceed to decide the instant appeal on the basis of records,
reply submitted by the appellant and discussions above. I find that the
RTI application bearing No. CCEMT/R/E/23/00053 dated 01/06/2023
filed with the CPIO, Chief Commissioner's Office, Meerut Zone, Meerut
was disposed off by the CPIO CCO Meerut Zone by denying the
information was correct in view of the discussion above. Further, since
the information was not provided to the applicant, the amount of Rs.
1800/-deposited by the applicant may be refunded to her.
Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER:-
In view of the discussion and findings in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeal CCEMT/A/E/23/00036 dated 08/10/2023 is disallowed. I direct to CPIO (CCO) Meerut to refund the amount of Rs. 1800/- to the applicant."
Page 4 of 12CIC/CCEMT/A/2024/604752 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 27.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 08.10.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 06.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.02.2024 Information sought:
3. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 29.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please refer to my RTI application no. CCEMT/R/E//23/00053 date 01.06.2023, through which I requested for the History of Posting of all Group-B officers of the Meerut Zone, on the basis of which the AGT 2023 was done in Meerut Zone. I got reply from the CPIO, CCO Meerut Zone vide letter C.N. V(30)CCO/MRT/RTI/Daya Pandey/128/2023/796 dated 22.06.2023 and asked to submit Rs. 1800/- for supplying HOP of Group B Officers available in the CCO and containing 900 pages. In compliance of the same I submitted the requisite fee of Rs 1800/- on 01.08.2023 and it was acknowledged by the CCO.
Thereafter, instead of providing the desired information, the Superintendent(CCO Admn) of the CCO issued letter C.N. II(3)CCO/MRT/Admn/RTI/01/2023/1171(S/L) dated 11.08.2023 to all the Group B officers of the Zone and asked for their consent for disclosing information Father's name, PAN Aadhar, Mobile No., Residential Address and spouse employment etc. Whereas, I have never asked for any of the above personal information and my request was only for the History of Posting of the Group B Officers of Meerut Zone.
In the public interest and under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the applicant seeks the following information from public office of CGST & Customs Meerut Zone, Meerut.
1. Name of the officer who issued the letter C.N. II(3)CCO/MRT/Admn/RTI/01/2023/1171(S/L) dated 11.08.2023
2. Please inform whether the concerned officer issued said letter on his own or on direction of the CPIO or any other officer of the Zone.Page 5 of 12
3. If the Superintendent (Admn.) has issued the said letter on the direction of another officer i.e. the CPIO or any Other Officer, please provide the name and designation of the said officer.
4. Please provide copies of all the correspondence between the CPIO and the Superintendent(CCO-Admn) of the CCO with reference to the above RTI application dated 01.06.2023.
5. If the Superintendent (Admn) of the CCO issued the said letter on its own, please inform whether the action of the officer is covered for disciplinary proceedings against the said officer in terms of CCS( Conduct) Rules, 1964 for violation of the order of the Superior officer i.e. CPIO of the Meerut Zone, who already vide his letter informed the applicant that the copies of HOPs will be provided after submission of a fee of Rs. 1800/- to Government exchequer and the applicant deposited the said fee and never asked for personal information of the Group -B Officers
6. Please provide the copies of all the note sheet pages of the File no. V(30)CCO/MRT/RTI/Daya Pandey/128/2023 pertaining to my RTI application no. CCEMT/R/E//23/00053 date 01.06.2023
7. Please provide the copies of all the note sheet pages of the File no. II(3)CCO/MRT/Admn/RTI/01/2023"
4. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.09.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is informed that the letter C.No. II(3)CCO/MRT/Admn/RTI/01/2023/1171 (S/L) dated 11.08.2023 was issued to departmental officers by the Superintendent (Admn), CCO Meerut after approval of competent authority. The said letter is an internal correspondence and exclusively issued to departmental officers for getting their consent. The information sought under above said RTI application is not covered under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 since the same relates to third party information. Therefore the information sought under the said RTI application cannot be provided."
5. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.11.2023, held as under.
"have carefully gone through the appellant's RTI application CCEMT/R/E/23/00094 dated 29/08/2023 and the grounds of instant appeal made by the appellant in the RTI appeal dated 08/10/2023. I find that the appellant was also granted an opportunity to present his case before the First Appellant Authority on 27/10/2023 either through Page 6 of 12 physical or virtual mode but the appellant failed to attend the persons! hearing.
I proceed further to discuss the facts on records available.
(i), in this regard, it is again intimated that the History of Posting of all the Group B (Gazetted and Non Gazetted Officers) are maintained by their respective formations and not by this office. However, copies of these HOPs are available in this office, on going through these History of Postings contains personal information in respect of individual officer such as Father name, PAN, Aadhar Mobile No., Residential address, spouse employment etc."
(ii). As per Section 11 of the Right of Information Act, 2005, before disclosing confidential information to third party, consent of the individual is required. Hence, letter to all the Gr. B officers posted in Meerut zone has been issued to forward their consent to this office so that requisite information may be provided to Ms. Daya Pandey. However, only one officer Shri T.J. Bhotia, Inspector submitted his consent for sharing the information. Some of the officers submitted that their History of Posting may be shared with the applicant masking their personal information. In this regard, it is informed that the intention and purpose of RTI was that information should not be created. In various orders, judicial authorities clearly mentioned that information should not be prepared by fishing exercise. Masking of personal information in the History of Posting means creating/ hiding the information available in that sheet. This office does not maintain information in form and manner as sought by the applicant without the personal information of the officers.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Annr Vs Aditya Bandopadhyaya & Ors) has held that
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/ or making of assumptions. It is also not Page 7 of 12 required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant.
Similarly the Central Information Commission, New Delhi-110066 in decision no. CIC/SB/A/2015/000165 dated 24.10.2016 has held that "The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and perusing the records, observes that session wise result as sought by the appellant is not compiled and maintained by the respondent. Hence, collating and compiling such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization."
In case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India Vs Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM Mo. 965/2015, it was held that "15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, 'right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision 3 under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant."
(iii). As per Section 7/9) of the RTI Act, 2005, "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. In the case of Dr. R. S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide LPA No.207/2020 dated 31.8.2020 was held that the disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less larger public interest'. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Therefore, I proceed to decide the instant appeal on the basis of records, reply submitted by the appellant and discussions above. I find that the RTI application bearing No. CCEMT/R/E/23/00094 dated 29/08/2023 Page 8 of 12 filed with the CPIO, Chief Commissioner's Office, Meerut Zone, Meerut was disposed of by the CPIO CCO Meerut Zone by denying the information was correct in view of the discussion above.. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER:-
In view of the discussion and findings in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeal CCENT/A/E/23/00035 dated 08/10/2023 is disallowed."
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals on the following grounds-
The Grounds for the Prayer B1. The CPIO and the FAA in the present matter has rejected the application by the Appellant without application of law and without lawful reasons. The conduct of the CPIO and the FAA is highly unbecoming of their senior status in public authority and also to their responsibility as designated officers under Right to Information Act. It is pathetic that the CPIO and the FAA have closed their eyes to deny the rights made available under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The information was denied arbitrarily and illogically without informing the reasons for exemption under the provisions of the RTI Act.
B2. The CPIO once decided to share the information with the appellant and asked to submit the desired fee of Rs. 1800/-. However, after deposit of Rs. 1800/-, no communication was sent to appellant. The appellant waited for more than 02 months, but no reply. The appellant came to know that the Superintendent (Administration) of the CCO, Meerut Zone vide his letter date 11.08.2023 asked for consent of the officer that too after the decision of the CPIO to share the information on 22.06.2023. Even till date the CPIO has not informed the appellant why the information denied to the appellant. Therefore, either the Superintendent (Administration) or the officers under whom directions he circulated the letter dated 11.08.2023 worked in violation of the provisions of the RTI, Act, 2005 and acted beyond the authority/powers of the CPIO, who was ready to share the information on 22.06.2023.
C. THE HISTORY OF POSTING OF AN OFFICER IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT. The following grounds have not being taken into considered while passing the order under reference :-
Page 9 of 12C1. That the CPIO and the FAA has rejected disclosure of information to the appellant as the same is confidential information. C2. The CBIC, New Delhi is the Administrative head of the Officers of CGST, Central Excise & Customs Zone, Meerut. History of posting(HoPs) of all the Group-A Officers is available on the official websites of the Central Government. Even the HoP of the CPIO, The First Appellate Authority RTI and Head of the Zone the Chief Commissioner is also available of the website.
C3. Even in the public offices of CGST, Central Excise & Customs Zone, Meerut, the Divisional, Commissionerate, Zonal Incharges are displaying their date of postings to the general public in their rooms through huge display boards.
C4 The revenue department may be prone to the corruption and regular cases of corruption have been noted in the transfer and postings of the Officers of these department. Even in the AGT-2023 held at CCO, Meerut Zone some aberrations from the norms were noted by the appellant. Therefore, for the sake of transparency, accountability and in public interest the appellant asked for the History of Posting of Group-B Officers. C5 The HoP of the Group-B Officers was available on the official website of the CGST Meerut Zone when the said website was working. How it can be said that sharing the same with general public/RTI applicant is violation of RTI Act, 2005.
D. NO PERSONAL INFORMATION WAS ASKED D1. That the application of appellant asked only for the History of Posting of Group B Officers. D2. The appellant never asked for Father's Name, PAN, Aadhar, Mobile No., residential Address and spouse employment etc D3. The HoP of an officers is maintained for their prospective/future transfers and Postings in the department. There is no need to mention Father's Name, PAN, Aadhar, Mobile No., in this record as this information is available in the Official service Books /Records of the Officer. In case of the residential Address and spouse employment, the Public Office may be interested for transfer and posting, but the appellant never sought the said information. The information sought by the appellant is not barred/exempted by any provision of the RTI Act, 2005 E. PROVISIONS OF SEVERABILITY E1 The RTI Act, 2005 provide for provisions of severability.Page 10 of 12
The section 10 (1) has been reproduced as under:- 10. (1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. E2. Therefore, the findings of the appellate authority are wrong and the appellant may please be provided the desired information after severing Father's Name, PAN, Aadhar, Mobile No., residential Address and spouse employment etc Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
7. The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Advocate present in person.
Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, Asst. Commissioner (on behalf of Shri Atul Aggarwal, CPIO) and Shri B B Singh, the then CPIO present through videoconference.
8. Ld. counsel for the Appellant while reiterating the contents of Second Appeal expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that contradictory replies have been given to the Appellant by the replying Respondent at two different dates.
In the first instance, the then CPIO demanded from the Appellant photocopying charge of Rs. 1,800/- for the requested information and afterwards, it was wrongly denied by the CPIO ignoring the fact that this information should be made public to maintain transparency in the system.
9. The Respondent stated that reply has already been provided to the Appellant, however, at the behest of the Commission, he volunteered to afford opportunity of inspection of relevant documents pertaining to this matter to the Appellant, which Ld. counsels for the Appellant did not contest. It may be noted that the parameter of third-party information does not apply as stringently when it pertains to service matter among the employees where it is natural to compare various entitlements and benefits. Therefore, provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act in such cases does not apply strictly.
Page 11 of 12Decision:
10. In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time within five weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply her a list of files connected with the queries in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to her upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. Information which are exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed.
11. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Customs & CGST, Meerut Zone, Opposite CCS University, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut - 250005 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)