Central Information Commission
Ch Satish Chandra vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 9 May, 2022
CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918
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/EPFOG/A/2020/693918
In the matter of:
Ch Satish Chandra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Employee Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office,
Vardan Commercial Complex,
M.I.D.C. Road No-16,
Wagle Estate, Thane - 400 604
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 05.08.2020
CPIO replied on : 18.08.2020
First Appeal filed on : 13.09.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 07.10.2020
Second Appeal received on : 26.11.2020
Date of Hearing : 05.04.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice)
Respondent: Shri Shiwaang Seth, Regional PF Commissioner-II, participated in
the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Thane.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 05.08.2020 seeking information on the following eight points:
The CPIO vide online reply dated 18.08.2020, informed to the Appellant as under:
"As per Opening Balance Check list the name of the employee Imandi Jyothi is not traceable. Hence it is requested to provide PF Account No. for obtain the details."Page 2 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.10.2020, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and also direct the CPIO to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondents for defying the provisions of the Act and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.Page 3 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918 The Respondent submitted as the Appellant is seeking his wife's EPF account details, they have denied the information to the Appellant under Section 11 of the RTI Act being third party personal information.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) 2211/2021 & CM APPL.16337/2021 in the matter of Amit Meharia versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. decided on 17.08.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as under:
"16. A perusal of all these FIRs and complaints therein would show that allegations have been made by the Respondent No. 4 against both her ex-husbands as also the in-laws etc. Thus, the privacy which is to be considered in this case is not just the privacy of Respondent No.4 alone, but in fact, that of the said husbands against whom complaints were filed as well as the in-laws etc. The personal information in this case does not relate only to the Petitioner or Respondent No.4 but also to those other persons who were the subject matter of the said complaints and FIR. Thus, the exception under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 would clearly apply in the present case.
...
...
19. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in Registrar, Supreme Court v. R.S. Misra [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11811] that the provisions of the RTI Act are for achieving transparency and not for making available information to be used in other proceedings, especially if there are other remedies available to the persons who seek the information, under another statute. The relevant extract reads as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
Page 4 of 6
CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918
53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizen the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency."
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes the Respondent has denied the information to the Appellant under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which is an incorrect Section/Clause to deny the information. The Commission counsels the Respondent that Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedure followed to seek consent/dissent from the concerned third party and that the denial should be made only according to the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission cautions then CPIO to be careful in future, while handling matters pertaining to the RTI Act. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 09.05.2022 Page 5 of 6 CIC/EPFOG/A/2020/693918 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Employee Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Vardan Commercial Complex, M.I.D.C. Road No-16, Wagle Estate, Thane - 400 604
2. The Central Public Information Officer Employee Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Vardan Commercial Complex, M.I.D.C. Road No-16, Wagle Estate, Thane,- 400604
3. Ch Satish Chandra Page 6 of 6