Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 22 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBECE/C/2023/636373
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/645297
Pankaj Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs 47-B,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeal and Complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications, hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.07.2023, 12.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Page 1 of 7
CIC/CBECE/C/2023/636373
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer remarks dated 27/04/2023 of CBEC made in respect of P.G. No. CBOEC/E/2023/0002471 dated 06/04/2023. Wherein, informed that "The Department while processing applications for deputation looks into the vigilance status of the officers as communicated and maintained by the vigilance wing. Officers who are clear from vigilance angle are sponsored for deputation. hence, there is no question of sending a tainted officer on deputation" (Copy attached).
In this regard, it is requested to provide filled copy of Annexure-II i.e. APPLICATION FORM that submitted by Shri C.P.S. Chauhan for the post of Joint Development Commissioner in SEEPZ-SEZ, Mumbai.
Copy of O.M. No. A-5/12/2015-SEZ dated 25th January, 2019 along with said Annexure-II i.e. APPLICATION FORM issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry for filling up the post of Joint Development Commissioner in SEEPZ-SEZ, Mumbai is also attached for your convenience."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought contains personal details of the officer which cannot be shared."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.07.2023, held as under:
"Appeal forwarded to concerned First Appellate Authority as on 19.07.2023."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/645297 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2023 seeking the following information:Page 2 of 7
"Kindly refer remarks dated 27/04/2023 of CBEC made in respect of P.G. No. CBOEC/E/2023/0002471 dated 06/04/2023. Wherein, informed that "The Department while processing applications for deputation looks into the vigilance status of the officers as communicated and maintained by the vigilance wing. Officers who are clear from vigilance angle are sponsored for deputation. hence, there is no question of sending a tainted officer on deputation" (Copy attached).
In this regard, it is requested to provide filled copy of Annexure-II i.e. APPLICATION FORM that submitted by Shri C.P.S. Chauhan for the post of Joint Development Commissioner in SEEPZ-SEZ, Mumbai.
Copy of O.M. No. A-5/12/2015-SEZ dated 25th January, 2019 along with said Annexure-II i.e. APPLICATION FORM issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry for filling up the post of Joint Development Commissioner in SEEPZ-SEZ, Mumbai is also attached for your convenience."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought contains personal details of the officer which cannot be shared."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.09.2023, held as under:
"Whereas, CPIO/Under Secretary (Ad-II), vide letter of even number dated 17.07.2023 had informed the applicant that the information sought contains personal details of the officer which cannot be shared.
Whereas, it is observed that CPIO/Under Secretary (Ad-II) has rightly denied the information as the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which inter-alia provides that:
"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:
However, the CPIO/Under Secretary (Ad.-II) is directed to exercise caution and ensure the timely disposal the RTI applications."Page 3 of 7
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Shireesh Kumar Gautam, US & CPIO and Shri Naveen Khatri, Supdt. present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 17.07.2023, they have categorically informed the Appellant/Complainant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant/Appellant in the instant Complaint/Appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant/Complainant.
The Commission observes that the Appellant/Complainant had asked information which is related to personal information of third party and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the Complainant has not disclosed any larger public interest in disclosing the information.
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.--Page 4 of 7
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(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 Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 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..."
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the Page 5 of 7 access to information as alleged by the Complainant. 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 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...."
No relief can be granted in the matter.
The Respondent is advised to share a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant/Complainant, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are 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 Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 47-B, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)