Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Giridhari Mohanty vs Central Govt. Employees Welfare ... on 21 October, 2024

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


File No : CIC/CGEHO/A/2023/635278

Giridhari Mohanty                                 .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम


PIO,
Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing
Organization, 6th Floor, Janpath Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001              .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                      :    15.10.2024
Date of Decision                     :    18.10.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :    23.04.2023
CPIO replied on                      :    17.05.2023
First appeal filed on                :    18.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order    :    14.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :



Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2023 seeking the following information:

Please provide a certified copy of the Agreement dated 22nd. October,2008 between M/S Manjeera Constructions Ltd. and CGEWHO for development of land and construction of a composite housing project thereon on a turnkey basis at Mouza Begunia, Bhubaneswar.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.05.2023 stating as under:

The information sought by the applicant is third party information and the same cannot be disclosed without hearing from the third party in terms of section 11(1) of the RTI Act.

Accordingly, the Contractor has been asked to give his concurrence in term of Rule II of the RTI Act 2005. A copy of the contract will be given as and when the Contractor gives no objection.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.06.2023, held as under.

1. It is observed that the Appellant has sought (a) whether the Third Party has treated the information as confidential (b) whether a notice has been given to the Third Party within 5 days of receipt of request for information with the fact that the CPIO intends to disclose the information/record and invite the Third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether such information should be disclosed

(c) The submission of the Third party shall be kept in view while deciding about the disclosure of information (d) As per proviso to Section 11(1), except in case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.

2. On going through the records, it is observed that the information asked by the applicant is Third Party information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has requested the Third Party to give his consent regarding disclosure of the information as asked by the Appellant, on 28 April 2023, within 05 days of receipt of request of the Appellant. The CPIO further informed that in response to her letter, the Third Party has refused to disclose the information under the plea 'A Privacy Defense'.

3. Hence, it is observed that CPIO stand is correct. I am satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO.

4. With the above Order, the Appeal stands disposed off.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:

"...I had requested for a certified copy of the Agreement dated 22nd. October 2008 between M/S Manjeera Constructions Ltd. and CGEWHO for development of land and construction of a composite housing project thereon on a turnkey basis at Mouza Begunia, Bhubaneswar where I applied for a flat under Self Financing Scheme.

However, the CPIO, Ms. Anjali Sachdeva replied "The information sought by the applicant is third party information and the same cannot be disclosed without hearing from the third party in terms of Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the contractor has been asked to give his concurrence in terms of Rule II of the RTI Act 2005. A copy of the contract will be given as and when the contractor gives no objection." Thus, the CPIO kept the matter open-ended. Instead, she could have waited for the response of the "Third Party" and then acted as per the provisions relating to third party information.

Aggrieved by this approach of CPIO, the undersigned preferred a first appeal. The FAA, Mr. Roshan Kishore denied the information stating, inter alia that the third party refused to disclose the information under the plea 'A Privacy Defense', without applying his own judgment as required under the rules relating to third party information.

In the above context, I have the following submission to make before your honour:-

1) When the contract is signed between the subject organisation and the contractor, how does it become third party information? Further, the contract is for a public purpose, i.e. for construction of flats for public service employees, both serving and retired, hence the contract is a public document. So, it couldn't have been denied.

2) The OM dated 15-04-13 of DoPT lays down the Guideline regarding information relating to Public Private Partnership, the extract of the same is reproduced below for convenience sake.

"1.2 Public Private Partnerships 1.2.1 If Public services are proposed to be provided through a Public Private Partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the Public Authority entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement. This may include details of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), if any set up, detailed project reports, concession agreements, operation and maintenance manuals and other documents generated as part of the implementation of the PPP project......"

In view of the above submissions, Your honour is requested to direct CPIO to provide the requested information forthwith as well as pass strictures against both CPIO and FAA and impose maximum penalty permissible under the RTI Act on the CPIO."

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Dy. Director (Admin)-cum- FAA and Md. Asif Aqubal, Asst. Director (Admin)-cum- CPIO present in person.

A written submission dated Nil filed by the appellant reiterating the contents of this appeal was taken on record.

Respondent reiterated his stand for denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by explaining that the Appellant has not established his locus standi in seeking the personal information of the third party. Further, the third party objected for not sharing their personal information under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Hence, information was not parted with the appellant.

Decision:

The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Respondent has appropriately denied the requested information to the Appellant as it contains the elements of personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

Here, attention of the Appellant is 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 Page 4 of 6 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..."

Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.

The appeal 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 Page 5 of 6 Copy to;

Asst. Director and FAA, Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing Organisation, 6th Floor, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)