Central Information Commission
Prakash Chandra vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 3 February, 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/BHELD/A/2020/136701
Prakash Chandra ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals
Ltd. (BHEL), RTI Cell, Room
No.7, HRDC, Sector-1, Ranipur,
Haridwar-249403, Uttarakhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2022
Date of Decision : 02/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/05/2020
CPIO replied on : 10/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 07/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/11/2020
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2020 seeking the following information;2
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 10.06.2020 stating as under;
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2020. FAA's order dated 07.08.2020, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Anand Prakash, Sr. Manager & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 29.01.2022, relevant portion of which is as under-3
- "....The appellant had sought information about MLC (Medico-Legal Case) of Shri Darshan, who was admitted to Main Hospital, BHEL Haridwar on 30th September 2016.
- As sought by the appellant, CPI0 had informed that during period from 01.12.2019 to 31.03.2020, The PIO/ Inspector-in-Charge Kotwali Ranipur Haridwar through letter No. 3IB/20I9, dated-04.03.2020 (which was received in Main Hospital, BHEL Haridawar on 06.03.2020) had sought the certified copy of MLC of Shri Darshan and the same was furnished to the Inspector.
- Further, the appellant had raised various queries/ questions i.e. name, designation, department of the individual collecting MLC, like details of individual issuing the copy of MLC, the type of copy of MLC issued etc. Since majority of information sought was in the form of queries or questions and moreover, involved the personal information of individuals/ third party. Hence the same was denied by invoking Section 8(I)(e) of RTI Act. It is to be informed to the honorable commission that the matters related to MLC of Individual(s) are very sensitive in nature and sometimes might involve disputes among family members also.
- Also, the available documents related to MLC of Shri Darshan, were supplied to him (to Shri Darshan) through an another RTI application No. HWCPIO210078 via CPIO reply dated 18.11.2021."
The CPIO further apprised the Commission that the Appellant has nowhere in his RTI Application specified that he has sought the desired information on behalf of his father with proxy/authority letter thereon. Thus, considering this fact although a copy of MLC has already been furnished to the Appellant however, the other queries raised by him contain elements of third party's personal information which cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. Lastly, he added that an inspection of relevant records pertaining to averred MLC has already been offered and duly availed by the Appellant in response to other RTI Application filed in the name of his father.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of the averred reply of the CPIO, however he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that complete information against points no. 2-10 has not been provided to him till date ignoring the fact that he has already filed a proxy letter of his father in this regard which authorizes him to seek information on behalf of his father. He further harped on the fact that information sought by him involves public interest as it would reveal the involvement of police officials in tampering with the MLC report of his father.
Decision:
4The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant through instant RTI Application (except at points no. 2,4,6 and 10) are in the nature of seeking clarifications/explanations from the CPIO based on interrogatories which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"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.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, the information sought by the Appellant at points no. 3, 5 & 6 regarding details of the officers involved in making or receiving of averred MLC reportcontains the elements of information exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act and is also squarely hits by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.The said observation is in lines with 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 matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. 5 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..."
Nonetheless, the reply and further clarification provided by the CPIO to assist the Appellant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the foregoing observations, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate channel.
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