Central Information Commission
Amol Prakash Salunkhe vs Department Of Defence on 21 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MODEF/C/2023/651769
CIC/DGAFM/A/2023/652343
Amol Prakash Salunkhe ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
416 Field Hospital, PIN -
903416, C/o 56 APO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025
Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaint and Second Appeal have been clubbed
together for disposal through common order as these are based on same RTI
application.
CIC/MODEF/C/2023/651769
CIC/DGAFM/A/2023/652343
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.09.2023, 03.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 07.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.11.2023, 10.11.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant/ Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 7
"Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 issued by Devaiah MS Lt. Col. Adjt. 416 Field Hospital PIN-903416 C/O 56 APO (Copy Attached).
1) Please provide the certified copy of the notice issued to Lt. Col.
416Field Hospital for to be presnt Mr. Satish Ramchadra Rakshe to for hearing by Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara court.
2) Provide the certified copies of other relevant documents on basis of which the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 has been issued by Lt. Conl.
3) Please provide the certified copy of the approval of the higher authority for issuing the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 to Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara in the court matter
4) Provide certified copy of outward register page on which the entry made for sending the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 to Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek
5) Provide the dispatch receipts (i.e. Speed Post/Registered Post etc.receipt) for sending the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023.
6) Provide the certified copy of power and duties and responsibilities has been allotted to Mr. Satish Ramchandra Rakshe as mentioned in the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 Sr. No. 2 (please mention his rank / post) as per the RTI Act Section 4 (1) b (ii).
7) Please provide the certified copy of rule provision for providing such letter to the staff by the Lt. Conl. Or commanding officer for his personal civil / revenue court matters.
8) Please provide the details about the copies of Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 has been sent to Dte.Gen of Med. Services HQ and AMC record purpose.
9) Please provide the certified copy of Letter of next hearing date intimated to your good office by Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara as per your requested in the letter Sr. No. 4"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/Appellant on 20.09.2023 stating as under:Page 2 of 7
"It is informed that the information sought in your RTI application under reference is related to military service and are of confidential in nature which are not related to you, hence the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/ Appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
"It is informed that the information sought in your RTI application under reference is related to military service and are of confidential in nature which are not related to you, hence the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act- 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal.
A written submission letter dated Nil has been filed by the respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 issued by Devaiah MS Lt. Col. Adjt. 416 Field Hospital PIN-903416 C/O 56 APO (Copy Attached).
1) Please provide the certified copy of the notice issued to Lt. Col. 416Field Hospital for to be present Mr. Satish Ramchadra Rakshe to for hearing by Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara court.
2) Provide the certified copies of other relevant documents on basis of which the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 has been issued by Lt. Conl.
3) Please provide the certified copy of the approval of the higher authority for issuing the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 to Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara in the court matter.
4) Provide certified copy of outward register page on which the entry made for sending the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 to Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara
5) Provide the dispatch receipts (ie. Speed Post/Registered Post etc. receipt) for sending the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023.Page 3 of 7
6) Provide the certified copy of power and duties and responsibilities has been allotted to Mr. Satish Ramchandra Rakshe as mentioned in the Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 Sr. No. 2 (please mention his rank post) as per the RTI Act Section 4 (1) b (ii).
7) Please provide the certified copy of rule provision for providing such letter to the staff by the Lt. Coal. Or commanding officer for his personal civil/revenue court matters.
8) Please provide the details about the copies of Letter No. 416FH/29/Est/2023 dated 23.04.2023 has been sent to Dte Gen of Med. Services HQ and AMC record purpose.
9) Please provide the certified copy of Letter of next hearing date intimated to your good office by Jila adhikshak, Bhumi Abhilek Office, Satara as per your requested in the letter Sr. No. 4."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shri Devaiah M S, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Complainant/Appellant, while reiterating the contents of his RTI application contended that the information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The respondent reiterated their stand for denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by stating that the information sought by the appellant contains the elements of personal information of third party which cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. He added that since the officer summoned (by a revenue court) was busy with official duty, therefore, he has authorized another official to appear before the court to seek adjournment in the matter on his behalf which the concerned officer did on the command of his higher ups.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Complaint/Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In response to Page 4 of 7 which, the Respondent replied that the information sought by the Complainant/Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, therefore, information being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of considered view that the respondent has appropriately denied the information to the complainant/appellant as it contains personal information of third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(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, attention of the Complainant/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 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 Page 5 of 7 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.
Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant Complaint/Appeal has the Complainant/Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party. This is another example of overstretching of one's right to information forgetting that the officer summoned is a Defence employee who cannot move/travel freely at will.
Further, in case File No. CIC/MODEF/C/2023/651769, this is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Here, in the instant case, no mala- fide is established on part of the CPIO which may call for any action. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot Page 6 of 7 automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the foregoing, no cause of action subsists in the matters under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The Complaint and Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Commanding Officer, 416 Field Hospital, PIN - 903416, C/o 56 APO Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)