Central Information Commission
Lalit Kumar Arya vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 4 January, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/147959
CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/649328
Shri Lalit Kumar Arya ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Rajasthan
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023
Date of Decision : 04.01.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
147959 17.01.2021 09.02.2021 27.02.2021 13.10.2021 10.11.2021
649328 20.08.2021 15.09.2021 19.09.2021 01.10.2021 21.10.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/147959 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated17.01.2021 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO/, NPCIL, Rawatbhatta, Rajasthan, vide letter dated 09.02.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated27.02.2021. The FAA/AD(CP&CC), NPCIL, Mumbai , vide order dated 13.10.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Rawatbhata, NPCIL vide letter dated 19.12.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information was incorrectly denied to him u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Act despite the fact that the complaint referred to in the application was filed by him.
The Respondent represented by Smt Ayesha Khatum, Dy Manager (HR), NPCIL, Rawatbhata participated in the hearing through video conference. She reiterated the replies available on record and stated that the information was denied u/s 8 (1) (j) since it was personal information of a third party and no larger public interest was justified by the Appellant.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO, NPCIL Rawatbhata to communicate to the Appellant the broad outcome of the action taken on his complaint by 31.01.2023 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/NPCOI/A/2021/649328 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 20.08.2021 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO NPCIL,Mumbai, vide letter dated 15.09.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2021. The FAA/AD(CP&CC), NPCIL, Mumbai, vide order dated 01.10.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 2 of 4
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Mumbai, NPCIL vide letter dated 27.12.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information provided to him was incorrect and misleading.
The Respondent represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO and AGM (HR), NPCIL, Mumbai; Shri Vinod Tirkey, Sr Manager, NPCIL, Mumbai and Shri Sanjay Arora, GM (Vigilance), NPCIL, Mumbai participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Srivastava stated that correct information as per available records regarding the action taken on his representation has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided since the broad outcome on the action taken on the complaint has been disclosed.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action;
thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not 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 Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or
(b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Page 3 of 4 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4