Central Information Commission
T M Kotraiah vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/117550
In the matter of:
T M Kotraiah
... Appellant
VS
CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO),
III Floor SLV Towers, Parvathi Nagar,
Bellary- 583103
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 21/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 07/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 11/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 17/12/2020 Date of Decision : 17/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Nagraj, Enforcement Officer & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the copies of composite claim application dated 13/08/2018 of Shri G. Ramesh along with all enclosures to the application.
2. Provide the information about the amount sanctioned in respect of the said application, amount disbursed, details of cheque and address of the applicant.1
3. Provide the name and particulars of the applicants who worked in society code No.GB/BLR 159433 and submitted composite claim application.
Give amount sanctioned and other details. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the sought for information/documents claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of hearing notice on 28.11.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED500610283IN.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 21.12.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the FAA in his order had stated that the appellant has to be provided the information held by the CPIO to the extent permitted under provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO was, therefore, directed to provide the information on point no. 1 where he had sought a copy of the composite claim for advance. With regard to the information sought under point no. 2 & 3 which comprises financial information of third party, the same was rightly denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI act as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the personal details of third party and disclosure of the same may not serve larger public interest.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether any additional information was given to the appellant in compliance with the order of the FAA, he submitted that complete information on this point was given to the appellant on 20.02.2019. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and hence no further relief can be given to the appellant, moreso, when he himself was not present to plead his case.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3