Central Information Commission
Love Gogia vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 10 June, 2020
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./ िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:-
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/641266-BJ+
CIC/MOEAF/C/2019/641282-BJ
Mr. Love Gogia
(E mail [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Dy. Secretary (PB),
Ministry of External Affairs,
Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan,
23-D, Room No. 4056,
Janpath, New Delhi - 11
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2020
Date of Decision : 10.06.2020
ORDER
RTI 1 File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/641266-BJ Date of RTI application 17.01.2019 CPIO's response 29.01.2019 Date of the First Appeal 01.02.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 12.03.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of Ms. Tannu Dua, D/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Dua & Wo Mr. Love Gogia working as Personal Assistant to the Director (Establishment), MEA; copy of the letter / note submitted by Tannu Dua to her office to stop her House Rent Allowance (HRA) in the year 2017; copy of the Page 1 of 8 letter / note dated 24.05.2018 submitted by Tannu Dua to her office requesting to release her HRA.
The CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2019, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.03.2019, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/MOEAF/C/2019/641282-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 17.01.2019 CPIO's response 29.01.2019 Date of filing the First appeal 01.02.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 12.03.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 23.05.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought on 02 points in respect of Ms. Tannu Dua, D/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Dua & Wo Mr. Love Gogia working as Personal Assistant to the Director (Establishment), MEA; copy of the letter / note submitted by Ms. Tannu Dua to her office to stop her House Rent Allowance (HRA) in the year 2017; copy of the letter / note dated 24.05.2018 submitted by Ms. Tannu Dua to her office requesting to release her HRA.
The CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2019, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.03.2019, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant/ Complainant: Mr. Love Gogia through TC;
Respondent: Mr. T. D. Bhutia, Deputy Secretary (PB & Pension), M/o External Affairs through TC;
Since both the matters pertain to the same RTI application, the Appeal and Complaint filed by the Appellant/ Complainant were considered by way of a common order. The Appellant/ Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was incorrectly denied to him u/s 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act,. 2005. While stating that he was the legally wedded husband of Ms. Tannu Dua, the Appellant/ Complainant referred to his consolidated written submission and alleged that Ms Dua was fraudulently continuing to draw HRA benefit during the period mentioned in the RTI application despite that fact that she was staying in Government Quarters subsequent to her marriage. Thus, in order to take further action against his wife, he desired the information from the Respondent Page 2 of 8 Public Authority which was incorrectly denied to him without following the mandatory procedure u/ 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 of taking the consent of the Third Party before denying the information. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated that in the garb of public interest, the Appellant/ Complainant was misusing the RTI mechanism by filing multiple RTI applications pertaining to his wife with whom he was having several matrimonial disputes pending before Courts. While stating that responding to the multiple RTI applications filed by the Appellant/ Complainant was causing disproportionate diversion of the meager resources, the Respondent submitted that the issue raised by the Appellant/ Complainant regarding irregularities in claiming HRA benefit was a matter between the employer and the employee and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure was justified by the Appellant/ Complainant. On being queried if he had filed a police complaint or approached the higher authorities within the Public Authority in the matter, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted that in the absence of complete documents he was unable to approach the law enforcement authorities in the matter. The Appellant/ Complainant expressed his discontent regarding the Respondent's submissions and stated that the copy of the written submission filed by the Respondent was not provided to him. The Respondent agreed to forward a copy of the written submission to the Appellant/ Complainant on his email id: [email protected].
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant/ Complainant dated Nil inter alia on four grounds that the A. Information sought is not personal information of an individual B Information is sought by the spouse, hence should be provided. C. Disclosure of information is in public interest and D. Denial of information by the CPIO / FAA is on mala fide ground. The Appellant thus prayed for allowing his applications (second appeals / complaints under reference above) in the interest of justice and spirit of RTI, to provide him the copy of the Show cause notices, if any issued by the Commission to the public authority, copy of the written submission made by the public authority in response to the notice issued by the Commission be provided to him too and an opportunity of hearing on every scheduled date of hearing in complaints cases. In support of his contention, the Appellant/ Complainant referred to the following decisions:
A Information sought is not personal information of an individual:
1. R. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court of India
2. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2489 of 2016 (High Court of Uttarakhand)
3. Kashinath J Shetye Vs PIO, Electricity Department Goa (High Court of Bombay)
4. P. Rajasekar Vs CPIO RBI (Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002976/17296 dated 10.02.2012) (CIC)
5. CIC/SG/A/2012/000342/17862 (CIC)
6. Kashinath Shetye vs Dinesh Vaghela (High Court of Bombay, 2009) Page 3 of 8 B Information is sought by the spouse, hence should be provided.
7. Smt. Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A. No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018 (High Court of MP, Division Bench)
8. Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile vs. Maharashtra SIC and Ors in W.P. No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 (High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench)
9. Ms. Asmita Sachin Waman Vs CPIO Ministry of External Affairs, CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140-BJ dated 15.05.2020 (CIC)
10. File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000038/LS (CIC)
11. Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (FAO 369/1996 decided on 14th January 2015), (Delhi High Court)
12. Jasleen Singh Vs Gurleen Kaur (CRM-M 36522/2019 (O&M)) decided on 06.01.2020 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
13. CIC/SA/A/2014/000433 (CIC)
14. Writ Petition No. 10690 of 2017 on dated 06.09.2017 (High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) C. Disclosure of information is in public interest
15. A.M.Kalra v. PEC University of Technology No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004365-SA (CIC) D. Denial of information by the CPIO / FAA is on mala fide ground
16. Bobby Luthra Sinha Vs CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs CIC/MOEAF/A/2017/160980 dated 22.05.2018 (CIC)
17. Mr. Avishek Goena Vs Union of India. Writ Petition No. 33290 of 2013 (High Court of Calcutta)
18. Sangita Kumari Vs Railway Board CIC/AB/C/2016/000044-AB dated 31.07.2017
19. File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/646057 & CIC/MOEAF/C/2019/646092 (CIC)
20. Ridge Vs. Baldwin [1963] UKHL 2 Page 4 of 8
21. Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 2375 (Supreme Court of India)
22. Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No.9095/2012 (Supreme Court of India)
23. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/127093 titled Sayida Begum Vs CPIO Ministry of External Affairs on dated 21.10.2019 (CIC)
24. CIC/MoEAF/A/2018/133436 titled Kailash Chand Gupta Vs CPIO Ministry of External Affairs on dated 21.10.2019 (CIC) The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 08.06.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that the information could not be provided u/s 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it had no relation with the public authority and disclosure of which would result in an unwarranted invasion in the privacy of an individual. It may also be mentioned that the applicant sought copies of letter/note submitted by an employee under fiduciary capacity to her employer regarding certain allowances (HRA) payable to her.
Moreover, the employee Ms. Dua vide her note dated 18.07.2018 & 21.12.2018, had intimated the Ministry that she is engaged in a serious matrimonial dispute with her husband and that she has filed petitions against Mr. Gogia for divorce and domestic violence in the Hon'ble Court, Faridabad. Also, through her note dated 01.02.2019, Ms. Tannu Dua informed the Ministry that matter regarding matrimonial dispute between her and Mr. Gogia is sub-judice and any information pertaining to her may not be divulged to Mr. Gogia through RTI, who only intends to threaten and pressurize her to withdraw cases against him. Keeping in view the facts above, CPIO wishes to bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble Commission that Shri Gogia has been filing innumerous RTI Applications seeking information relating to his estranged wife, Ms. Tannu Dua every now & then and it is very much evident that all of these arise out of the ongoing bitter matrimonial dispute between him and Ms. Dua. The RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authority; however, in the instant case, RTI Applications filed by the appellant do not have any relation to public authority or interest, rather these are purely motivated by personal vengeance, which indeed reflects sheer misuse of RTI Act. Besides, examination of such RTI Applications & complaints filed by Mr. Gogia, preparation of replies to RTI queries divert the limited resources available to the Ministry disproportionately from doing normal public activity towards a matrimonial dispute.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
Page 5 of 8"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Moreover, the Commission observed that he Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining Page 6 of 8 to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
A reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"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 Page 7 of 8 members, 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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant/ Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Appeal/ Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 10.06.2020
Page 8 of 8