Central Information Commission
Pradeep Tandon vs Indian Academy Of Highway Engineers ... on 1 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IAOHE/A/2022/140608
Pradeep Tandon ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Academy of Highway
Engineers, RTI Cell, A-5 NH-24
Bypass, Institutional Area,
Sector-62, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/10/2022
Date of Decision : 31/10/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 29/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 28/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 30.05.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "Is any building assessment carried out within IAHE campus during FY 2019-
2021, FY 2021-2022.
12. Did, IAHE conducted NDT test by 3rd party during Jan 2021 to Sep 2021, if yes a. Please provide the name of 3rd party, which conducted the NDT test b. Please provide the site location where NDT test was conducted c. Please provide the copy of invoice raised by 3rd party d. Please provide the internal noting sheet and approval for conducting NDT test
3. Please provide the name of firm with whom IAHE has arbitration/legal/ contractual dispute is pending as on 30-05-2022.
4. Please provide the copy of visitor register between 01-08-2020 to 30-08-2021, kept at main gate and maintained by security personnel.
5. Please provide the copy of material register between 01-08-2020 to 30-08-2021, kept at main gate and maintained by security personnel."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.06.2022 against points no. 1, 2, 2(b) and 3 of the RTI application. However, in response to points no. 2(a), 2(c), (d), 4 and 5, the CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.06.2022. FAA's order dated 28.07.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO against points No. 4 and 5 of the RTI application and with regard to points No. 2(a), 2(c) & (d) the FAA furnished a copy of relevant information to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of information by the CPIO against points no. 4 and 5 of RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Joint Director & CPIO present through intra- video conference.
The Appellant stated that his latest written submission filed prior to hearing may be considered for disposal of instant Appeal. The relevant extracts of his written submission are reproduced below for ready reference -
1. xxxxxx.
2. Our Company (Connect Fittings Private Limited) were awarded a contract for execution of work i.e. Structural repair of exterior damages components of trainees hostel building of Indian Academy of Highway Engineers A-5 Sector-62 2 at Noida, U.P. vide agreement dated 08-01-2021, having value of Rs.
1,25,58,304.77 (Rs. xxxxxxx) Annexure 01
3. The awarded work was not executed due to two officers of IAHE namely Shri. Sunil Kumar Gupta and Dr. Sanjay Wakchaure, who were directly involved in the execution of work. Deputy Director-NFSG-1 Shri. Sunil Kumar Gupta-NFSG-1 demanded Rs. 10,000,000.00 (Rs. xxxxxxx ) as token of issuing acceptance letter I award of work, which was question by me (Pradeep Tandon), the Deputy Director-NFSG-1 Shri. Sunil Kumar Gupta told me (Pradeep Tandon) that the money will be distributed among two directors (Additional Director Dr. Sanjay Wakchaure and himself), Shri. Sunil Kumar Gupta took me (Pradeep Tandon) to Additional Director Dr. Sanjay Wakchaure and Additional Director Dr. Sanjay Wakchaure asked me to do as Mr. Sunil Gupta is telling.
4. I discarded the personal interest shown by both Directors and emphasized on site allotment take over so that work can be started in time as per agreement date.
5. In spite of lot of hurdle created during execution by these two officers of IAHE, we (Connect Fittings Private Limited) completed the work of Rs. 54,43,00,00.00 Lakhs, which was approximately 43 % of total work Annexure
02.
6. We reported the matter to Central Vigilance Commissioner, Satarkta Bhavan, Block-A GPO Complex, INA New Delhi - 110 023 along with Chief Vigilance Office Ministry of Transport Road Transport Bhawan, 1, New Delhi-110001......... Annexure 03.
Xxxxx
7. To strengthen our case in CVC, CVO and Court, I Pradeep Tandon started obtaining information through RTI and the RTI was placed with the help of Pradeep Kumar Mishra dated 25-03-2021 Annexure 04.
8. xxxxxx
9. The RTI dated 25-04-2022 were filed to obtain important information, however information under serial no (iii) and (iv) was denied by CPIO vide letter IAHE/Admin/04/RTI/2022-23 dated 06-05-2022 (As matter is sub-judice being under the dispute resolution). An appeal to the First Appellate Authority was filed dated 17-05-2022. The First Appellate passed an order dated 20-06-2022 favouring IAHE official to hide the information which was sought in public 3 interest, however in RTI reply dated 28-06-2022. there was no such case pending in connection with information asked, which shows information was deliberately not disclosed (refer serial no. 03, the ongoing case does not belongs to information denied in RTI reply by CPI0) Annexure 06
10. An online RTI filed vide registration no. IAOHE/R/E/22/00158 dated 28-05- 2022 categorically seeking one few important information under serial no 4 and 5 in RTI to strengthen our case with CVC, CVO and in court, which was denied by OP!O. An appeal dated 29-08-2022 was filed by me (Pradeep Tandon). The First Appellate passed and order dated 28-07-2022, which provided part information and intentionally did not disclosed information asked under serial no. 4 & 5, which is vital information to strengthen my case in court against corruption charges against IAHE officers, which is for public interest Annexure 07......"
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO reiterated the denial of information at points no. 4 & 5 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act explaining that details of visitor's register and material register impinges on the privacy of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; and thus, the Appellant was informed accordingly.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal details of all the concerned third parties to the Appellant in response to points no. 4 and 5 of RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as it contains the elements of their personal 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.--
(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;.."4
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..."
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the alleged corruption in non-execution of the awarded tender in his company's favour is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be 5 converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6