Central Information Commission
Purna Chandra Panda vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 6 January, 2023
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/CAGIN/A/2022/102893
Purna Chandra Panda .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Deputy Accountant General-(Admin),
Office of the Accountant General-(A&E),
Accounts & Entitlement-Odisha,
Bhubaneswar-751001 (Odisha).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.08.2021
CPIO replied on : 06.09.2021
First appeal filed on : 18.11.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17.12.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 21.01.2022
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2023
Date of Decision : 06.01.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 06.09.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 18.11.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2021 held as under:Page 2 of 6
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO/Deputy Accountant General (Admin) Bhubaneshwar vide letter dated 27.12.2022 as under:Page 3 of 6
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 Page 4 of 6 Respondent: Sri Raj Ashok (Sr. Deputy Accountant General) Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information.
The Respondent submitted that the desired information is purely personal to those pensioners whose pension papers were forwarded by district education officers , Balasore and Does not relate to any larger public activity or interest. Hence cannot b e disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 27.12.2022 to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant has sought information pertaining to personal information of individuals which qualifies as a third party information and same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, further no larger public interest has been invoked by him . 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] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal Page 5 of 6 information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the referred case and deny the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information. As regards the point no.2 of the RTI application the commission is of the considered opinion that an appropriate responses has been furnished by the Respondent. In view of the forgoing the Commission upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6