Central Information Commission
Vishal Sehrawat vs Delhi Fire Services on 4 March, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DLFSR/A/2020/136314
Vishal Sehrawat .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director-(Admin.), Directorate of
Delhi Fire Services-HQ (Government of NCT
of Delhi), Administration Branch, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.05.2020
CPIO replied on : 24.06.2020
First appeal filed on : 07.07.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 21.08.2020
Second Appeal received at CIC : 20.11.2020
Date of Hearing : 04.03.2022
Date of Decision : 04.03.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information:Page 1 of 7
Etc. Page 2 of 7 PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 24.06.2020, as under:
Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 07.07.2020. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2021 held that :Page 3 of 7
Written submissions have been received from PIO, vide letter dated 22.02.2022, as under:Page 4 of 7
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present in person along with his representative Mr. Vaibhav Kush Respondent: Mr. Shailender Pun, ASO & Rep. of PIO Rep. of the Appellant reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that PIO has wrongly denied the information under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide the relevant information sought for in the instant RTI Application.
Upon Commissions instance, Rep. of PIO submitted that a written submission dated 22.02.2022 enumerating all the details has been submitted for the perusal of the Commission. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that PIO's blanket denial of information under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is Page 5 of 7 incorrect. In view of the same, Commission directs the PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide following generic information as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant, free of cost:
1. Date of enrollment sought at point no. 2
2. Date of promotion as leading fireman as sought at point no. 3
3. Date of promotion as Ad-hoc submission officer as sought at point no. 4
4. Date of promotion as permanent submission-officer as sought at point no.5
5. Total no. of criminal cases pending/lodged (as available on record) as sought at point no. 6 The said direction of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
As regards to remaining paras, Commission observes that queries sought in the said paras are mostly clarificatory in nature and above all, sought with regards to promotion and professional records of certain third-party disclosure of the same could impede the privacy of the concerned third party, further no larger public interest has been invoked by the appellant.
In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is 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 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] Page 6 of 7 In view of afore-mentioned observations, Commission upholds the reply of the PIO on the remaining paras of the RTI Application.
Further, Commission remarks that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/clarify/deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, no further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 7