Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijayakumar Maled vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 May, 2022

                                               CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                    Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690

In the matter of:

Vijayakumar Maled                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO,                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Assistant P.F Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Regional Office,
Bengaluru, Bhavishyanidhi
Bhawan No-13, Raja Ram Mohan
Roy Road, Bengaluru560025

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI Application filed on                  :   09.09.2020
CPIO replied on                           :   29.09.2020
First Appeal filed on                     :   05.11.2020
First Appellate Authority order           :   19.11.2020
Second Appeal received on                 :   23.12.2020
Date of Hearing                           :   05.05.2022

The following were present:

Appellant: Shri Vijayakumar Maled, participated in the hearing through
video conference from NIC Kachch.




                                                                    Page 1 of 13
                                           CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690

Respondent: Shri Ravi Kumar, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II
and CPIO, participated in the hearing through video conference from NIC
Koramangala.

                              ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 09.09.2020 seeking information as under:

CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Shri Trilochan Prasad Bariha, Regional P.F. Commissioner-III/CPIO, Regional Office, EPFO, Bengaluru, vide letter dated 29.09.2020, informed to the Appellant as under:

CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.11.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.11.2020, informed as under:

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant submitted that he has a matrimonial dispute with his Smt. Sudha whose PF Remittance details, the appellant has sought qua the instant the RTI application.....i have some matrimonial dipute with Smt. Sudha..

The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant vide RTI application pertains to third party and personal in nature, therefore the same is denied under section 8 (1)(e) and 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Respondent has further substantiated the denial of above information by Page 4 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 relying upon various judgments of Supreme Court as well as High Court vide his written submission dated 25.04.2022.

A written submission has been received by the commission from the appellant on 28.04.2022 wherein the commission has been apprised as under:

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. A Ravi Kumar, Regional PF Commissioner - II and Central Public Information Officer, Regional Office, Bengaluru (Malleshwaram) vide letter dated 25.04.2022, and the same has been marked to the appellant wherein the commission has been apprised as under:

CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Page 6 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Page 7 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Page 8 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Page 9 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, which has been appropriately denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, since the Appellant is contesting the same, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:

"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.

...

...

CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690

19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:

"xxx xxx xxx

53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.

54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the Page 11 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."

Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent public authority and accordingly finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 09.05.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 12 of 13 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/140690 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bengaluru, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan No-13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Bengaluru- 560025

2. The Central Public Information Officer /Assistant P.F Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bengaluru, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan No-13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Bengaluru560025

3. Mr. Vijayakumar Maled Page 13 of 13