Central Information Commission
Rustom Chakma vs National Projects Construction ... on 2 August, 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/NPCCL/A/2021/659608
Rustom Chakma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Projects Construction
Corporation Limited, RTI Cell,
Plot No. 148, Sector - 44,
Gurugram - 122003, Haryana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2022
Date of Decision : 01/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 27/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 29/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 27.10.2021 seeking information regarding the details on Indo-Bangla Border fencing in Mizoram, including inter-alia the following;
"1. Lists of compensated beneficiaries detailing name, father name, area compensated for with compensated amount for Borunsaury link road (the 1 spelling name of the village may differ in various official documents such as Borunasuri, Baranasury, Boranasury-kindly pursue all available combination). Explanation: Borunasury link road lies between Kurbalovasora link road of Lawngltai district and Kojoisury link road of Lunglei district of Mizoram.
2. Details of compensated beneficiaries of Indo-Bangla border fencing link road Package No-4 covering Lunglei and Lawngtlai district including the names, father name, area compensated for, and assessment report of the damages of those beneficiaries."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 25.11.2021 stating as follows:
"Points 1&2: The List of Beneficiaries and the amount to be paid to the beneficiaries are prepared by the concerned State Govt./District Autonomous council authorities of Lawngtlai & Lunglei districts. The Disbursement of amount is also made the concerned authorities. The disbursement of amount is also made by the concerned authorities. NPCC is not directly disburse the amount since the said state Government/District Autonomous council has their own system of working as per laid down procedure of the state government and the information may be obtained from the respective authorities."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2021. FAA's order dated 10.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of material information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Jasmine Dhar Singh, GM (HR) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that a timely response has already been furnished to the Appellant informing him that " List of Beneficiaries and the amount to be paid to the beneficiaries are prepared by the concerned State Govt./District Autonomous 2 council authorities of Lawngtlai & Lunglei districts. The Disbursement of amount is also made the concerned authorities. The disbursement of amount is also made by the concerned authorities. NPCC is not directly disburse the amount since the said state Government/District Autonomous council has their own system of working as per laid down procedure of the state government and the information may be obtained from the respective authorities".
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application is of the considered view that list of beneficiaries and the details of the compensation amount paid to them as sought for contain the elements of personal information of third parties which is squarely hit by Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of 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 while explaining 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, 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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) 3 Nonetheless, the factual reply provided by the CPIO that the information is not available with them and that the concerned State authorities i.e. District Autonomous Council makes the payment directly to the beneficiaries and therefore, all the details as sought by the Appellant are available with the Council is appropriate this coupled with the fact that non-disclosure of the information sought being personal information of the third parties is in the spirit of RTI Act.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted 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 / 4