Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Chauhan vs Csio,Chandigarh on 1 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CSIOC/A/2021/146423
In the matter of
Om Prakash Chauhan ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Central Scientific Instruments Organisation
Sector - 30C, Chandigarh - 160030
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/03/2021 CPIO replied on : 04/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 14/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 23/07/2021 Second Appeal dated : 22/10/2021 Date of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date of Decision : 01/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: P.Mohapatra, Sr. Principal Scientist and CPIO alongwith Nishi Sharma, Section Officer, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to complaints dated 30.09.2020 & 28.10.2020 lodged by him against Mr. Amitawa Das, Sr. Principal Scientist:
1. Provide a copy of the memorandum issued to Mr. Amitawa Das.
2. Provide a copy of the reply submitted by Mr. Das in response to his complaints.
3. Provide details of action / proceedings done against Mr. Sopankar Das, as mentioned in para 4 of his complaint dated 28.10.2020 1 Grounds for Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information was incorrectly denied by the CPIO. In his written submissions dated 26.11.2022 he has stated that since public funds were involved in the matter, the information should have been provided. He also submitted that the FAA had failed to provide a personal hearing to him. He further submitted that complaints filed by him should not be treated as personal to third parties.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 04.05.2021. On a query, he submitted that the complaints of the applicant, were considered and he was informed through a reply that the issues raised by him are personal. He further submitted that both the complaints against both the third parties were considered by the competent authority and found unfounded and hence, closed.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the information sought by the appellant was related to two different third parties and even though the appellant was the person who had filed some complaints against the said persons, however, the information sought by him qualifies as personal information of third parties and therefore the same was rightly denied by the CPIO and the FAA u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Since the outcome of the complaints have been given during the hearing, no further action is called for .
Decision:
In view of the above, no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत & त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3