Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Poornima vs Ministry Of Shipping on 10 August, 2022

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                  के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/DSHIP/C/2022/610236

Poornima                                           ....िशकायतकता  /Complainant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Maritime University,
RTI Cell, East Coast Road,
Semmencherry, Chennai,
Kanchipuram - 600119, Tamilnadu.                      .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   08/08/2022
Date of Decision                  :   08/08/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on          :   30/12/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   28/01/2022
First appeal filed on             :   01/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order   :   17/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   NIL


Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 30.12.2021 seeking the following information:

"Please Confirm the information related to advertisement "Advt. No. IMUHQ/ R/13/14/1/2018-Estt.(Rectt.)/01 dated 21/04/2018".

1. Deputy Registrar- 2 nos.

2. Assistant Registrar -2 nos.

3. Section Officer-7 nos.

Provide with following advertisement related copies of (IOM/ION/Internal Officer Noting/Approval Noting from Competent Authority and your Apex Body(EC):

a) All related Inter Officer Noting OR (ION) relating to Above (Sl. No 1,2 &3) Post

1. Sl.1 Initial Approved Vacancy (i.e) before advertisement and Vacancy Increased Noting after advertisement published.

2. Sl. 2 & 3 Initial Approved Vacancy ION and ION(Inter Office Noting) for Cancellation Notification.

3. Sl.No (2 &3) Exam fee refund details and related noting or IOM Assistant Registrar & Section Officer Post

b) All related Approval/concern (Executive Council) from your Apex Body of (Sl. No 1,2 &3) Post.

1. Sl.1 Initial Vacancy and Vacancy Increased Approval.

2. Sl. 2 & 3 Initial Vacancy and Cancellation Approval."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 28.01.2022 stating as follows:-

"please refer to your application no. IMUNC/R/E/21/00105 registered in RTI portal. Since the information requested by you is voluminous in nature, you are requested to visit IMU in-person for availing and inspecting the requested information. Kindly convey your readiness to visit IMU through email ([email protected]). On receipt of your readiness and requisite information from the concerned section, we will intimate you the date and time on which you can visit IMU and inspect those documents. This is for kind information."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2022. FAA's order dated 17.02.2022 held as under:-

"As requested by CPIO, you may inspect the documents in IMU HQ as it is voluminous."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint showing her unwillingness to opt for inspection opportunity owing to long distance for more than 700 kms. She further harped on the fact that despite agreeing to pay the additional RTI fees , the CPIO did not furnish the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not present.

Respondent: Anbu R, Asst. Registrar & CPIO present through video-conference.

The CPIO submitted that timely response has already been provided to the Complainant with an opportunity for inspection of relevant as the information sought for runs into numerous files. He further submitted that the said reply was also affirmed by the FAA, however the Complainant did not avail of the same opportunity. He also apprised the Commission, that the Complainant is a habitual RTI applicant who has filed multiple RTI Applications with her name and proxy names just to harass the Respondent public authority and her claim to be an illiterate person is not acceptable for the reasons that her drafting for information sought lacks any grammatical error. He further apprised the Commission that even otherwise, information such as results and list of selected candidates as sought by the Appellant is always uploaded by IMU under bona fide approach ,on their website under suo- moto disclosure to maintain transparency in the system.

Decision At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of facts and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the information sought for by the Complainant including the entire files notings for the averred vacancy position contains the elements of personal information of said third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 3 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..."

However, ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIO has erred in providing the opportunity of inspection of relevant records of third party's personal information which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without seeking the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he should have sought for the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

In view of the above and considering the absence of the Complainant to plead her case, no further action is warranted in the matter.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4