Central Information Commission
M Suresh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 11 October, 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/CCACH/A/2021/137543
M Suresh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Income Tax Officer,
Ward 3, RTI Cell, Railway Feeder
Road, Virudhnagar - 626001, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/10/2022
Date of Decision : 07/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 26/04/2021 & 22/05/2021
First appeal filed on : 28/05/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Please give an it statement with attested copy of A. Paulnehru Alias Khannan in the year of 2009-2010.1
2. Please give a property statement with attested copy in lastely and before submitted of A. Paulnehru Alias Kannan.
3. What are all the monetary benefits including salary and non-salary to get Shri. A Paulnehru Alias Kannan.
4. Central Government Employees have gives money (above seven lakhs) to others/state government employee has allowed to permission?. If allowed permission, Shri. A. Paulnehru Alias Kannan had any permission to give money to other?.
5. Please give the total family members particular in Shri. A. Paulnehru Alias Kannan.
6. What are all the Departmental Action/Awards/Gifts to Shri. A. Paulnehru Alias Kannan on that time and before his retirement.
The CPIO, JCIT-2, Non-Corporate Range, Madurai transferred the RTI application to the concerned CPIO i.e. ITO, Ward - 3, Virudhnagar on 26.04.2021.
The CPIO Ward - 3, Virudhnagar replied to the appellant on 22.05.2021 denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
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 video conference. Respondent: Paulchamy, ITO & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information by the CPIO.2
The CPIO submitted that being third party information, the same cannot be disclosed to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information as being exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further 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 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 3 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 is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4