Central Information Commission
V Madhavan vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 1 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/600731
V MADHAVAN ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Wellington Cantonment Board,
Wellington Bazaar, The
Nilgiris - 643232 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025
Date of Decision : 30.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"A reference is invited to the Office Note dated 10-07-2017. The promotion of transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority is the larger public interest involved in the request.Page 1 of 6
1. Please provide the copy of the Transfer of Property Application submitted by (a) Shri Santhigiri Ashram: (b) Shri Srichand Naraindas Lelani & Tmt. Kamala Srichand Lelani and (c) Shri Rajesh Kumar.
2. Please provide a copy of the approval of the accredited authority to keep the three applications in abeyance.
3. Please provide a copy of the rectification deed submitted by Shri Srichand Naraindas Lelani & Tmt. Kamala Srichand Lelani.
4. Please inform the status of the three Transfer of Property Applications, together with the date of the Board meeting and the Board Resolution Number wherein they have been sanctioned.
The CPIO will please inform the additional cost to be remitted on the ONLINE RTI PORTAL and enable remittance via the ONLINE RTI PORTAL."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 23.08.2023 stating as under:
"With reference your RTI application, as per the section 8(j) of RTI Act 2007, The information which relates to personal information of third party the disclosure of the same has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the information cannot be provided at this stage."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.10.2023, held as under:
"With reference to the above, Point No. 1,2 & 3 it is intimated that this office had forwarded a letter to the individuals to grant permission from them in order to disclose the information as requested by you. However, the individuals have forwarded a letter to this office stating that no information pertaining to their properties should be disclosed. Hence, as per their request the information cannot be considered at this stage. Further, Point No.4 vide CBR No. 21 dated 08.10.2018 available in the public domain on the Wellington Cantonment Board website."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 2 of 6The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Ms. Kanchana, Revenue Inspector and CPIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Written submissions of the Complainant and the Respondent are taken on record.
6. The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 23.08.2023, they have categorically informed the 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. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that they have also sought consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the third party denied disclosure of information under the RTI Act.
7. The Respondent further submitted that they have informed the Complainant on point No. 4 of the RTI application that "Further, Point No.4 vide CBR No. 21 dated 08.10.2018 available in the public domain on the Wellington Cantonment Board website."
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint 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 Complainant.
9. The Commission observes that the 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. The Complainant has not disclosed any larger public interest in disclosing the information.
10. 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 3 of 6
(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;.."
11. 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..."
12. 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 Page 4 of 6 CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the 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...."
13. The Commission further observed that the Complainant has filed complaint before the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act and the Commission, at this stage, cannot direct the Respondent to provide information at the stage of adjudicating the complaint.
14. The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held that "the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different Page 5 of 6 remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable."
15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Complainant, hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Complaint is 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 Copy To:
The FAA, Chief Executive Officer, Wellington Cantonment Board, Wellington Bazaar, The Nilgiris - 643232 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)