Central Information Commission
Ch Sushmitha vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 28 June, 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/CECHZ/A/2021/607128
Ch Sushmitha ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner
of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST
Commissionerate, RTI Cell, GST
Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004,
Telangana. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/06/2022
Date of Decision : 27/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 23/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 04/11/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 03/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/02/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2020 seeking the following information:
(a) How many number of Inspectors were allotted to Hyderabad and to Visakhapatnam Zones from SSC CGL 2017 Direct Recruit Batch. The information maybe provided in the table below:1
Zone Number of Inspectors
Hyderabad
Visakhapatnam
Total
(b) Details of the Rules/guidelines that were followed for allotting the Inspectors belonging to SSC CGL 2017 Direct Recruit Batch between Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam Zones may please be provided.
(c)Details of the first preference for posting exercised by the Inspectors recruited through SSC CGL 2017 maybe provided in the table below:
Zone preferred during Number of Inspectors Document Verification Hyderabad Visakhapatnam Total
(d) Copy of Note sheets of the file in which Zone (Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam) was allotted to Inspectors recruited through SSC CGL 2017.
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 23.10.2020 stating as follows:-
"a ) Zone wise allotment of Inspectors from SSC CGLE 2017 is as given below:
Zone Number of Inspectors Hyderabad 86 Visakhapatnam 34 Total 120
b) The allotment of zones was done as per the administrative requirement and as per the vacancies available in the two zones at that time.
(c) and (d):- The details sought pertains to third party information and hence the same cannot be provided. However, copy of allocation orders issued vide EO (N.G.O.) No. 67/2020 dt. 23.09.2020 and 75/2020 dt 15.10.2020 to Inspectors recruited through CGL 2017 are annexed."2
Being dissatisfied with the denial of the information on para (c) & (d), the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2020. FAA's order dated 03.12.2020 held as under:-
"The CPIO is hereby directed to either provide information sought by the applicant or give specific reasons as to why the information falls under Section (8) of RTI Act, 2005 for each category of information separately."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: P Mohan Vamsi, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order, the Appellant was provided with a reply on 30.03.2021 wherein for para (c) the details of first preference for posting exercised by the Inspectors recruited through SSC CGL 2017 was provided while for para (d), the initial denial of the information as being related to third parties was explained as envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information sought for at para (d) of the RTI Application as being related to third parties was appropriate in principle, however the CPIO erred in not specifying Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for the same. Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO in compliance with the FAA's order is upheld by the Commission leaving no scope of intervention at this stage. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 3 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..."
Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered 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