Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anita Sharma vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 6 September, 2022

Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              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/BPCLD/A/2021/104025

Mrs. Anita Sharma                                       ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO                                                    ...!ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Head Office, Bharat Bhawan, 4&6,
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, PB NO.
688, Mumbai-400001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

 RTI : 27-11-2020              FA    : 20-12-2020            SA       : 27-01-2021

 CPIO : 11-12-2020             FAO : 08-01-2021              Hearing : 29-08-2022

                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 11-12-2020 had denied the information as sought at point no. (v)&(vi) under section 11(1) & 8 (1)(e), 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and provided information on point no. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) to the appellant.

Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 20-12- 2020 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAO Vide order dated 08-01-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant was personally present in the hearing. The respondent, Ms. Sonam Rajgariya, Deemed PIO attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The written submissions of the appellant and the respondent are taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 27.11.2020. She stated that VRS details of her husband has not been provided to her by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission that complete information should be provided to her.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 11.12.2020, point- wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the appellant. The respondent submitted that details of VRS cannot be provided to the appellant as it is personal information of third party and it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that they have also sought consent from the third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act but third party has denied disclosure of his information to the appellant.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding details of VRS of his husband and issues related thereto which is personal information of third party and the same cannot be provided to the appellant as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. With regards to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding non-disclosure of the information, this Commission refers to the judgment dated 03-10-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 titled as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & ors., wherein, it has been held as under:-

"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."

10. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the information of third party(s) cannot be disclosed to the RTI applicant in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

                                                           नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                       Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                               सूचना आयु )
                                     Information Commissioner (सू

                                                        दनांक / Date : 29-08-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)


S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
      Head Office, Bharat Bhawan, 4&6,
      Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
      PB NO. 688, Mumbai-400001

2.    Mrs. Anita Sharma




                                                                        Page 4 of 4