The details of assets & liability, income, copy of form 16, loan etc. availed by an individual was denied – Appellant: Information needed for submission to the court – CIC: Apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the respondent
The appellant sought following information:-
1. Provide certified copy of movable/immovable property returns for the financial year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 filed by Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya as Asstt. Officer-Nontechnical.
2. Provide certified copy of income tax returns for the financial year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 filed by Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya as Asstt. Officer-Non-technical.
3. Provide certified copy of details and Form 16 of income tax paid on his salary and income from other sources for the financial year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 by Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya as Asstt. Officer-Non-technical.
4. Was the department informed by Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya about the property (No.914/1632 Daryabad, Dr.Pandey Chowraha,Kalyanai Devi, Distt. Allahabad) gifted to him by his father? If yes, what action was taken by the department, provide certified copy.
5. Has Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya taken any loan or advance from the department during financial year 2004-2005? If yes, what was the amount, nature and reasons shown for the loan/advance. Provide certified photocopy of the details.
The appellant sought following information:-
1. Was Shri Sunil Krishan Malviya, retired officer, Non-technical informed about the information sought by me on 18/04/2014, if yes; provide certified copy of related letter?
2. Provide photocopy of non-consent of Shri Krishan Kumar Malviya for giving the above information
3. Was Shri Sunil Krishan informed about the information sought on 4 points vide appellant’s letter dated 16/07/2012, If yes, provide photocopy of the same?
4. Provide photocopy of non-consent of Shri Krishan Kumar Malviya for giving the information sought on 4 points vide letter dated 16/07/2012.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ranjan Malviya through VC
Respondent: Mr. Hans Raj Tiwari APIO through VC
It is seen that the information sought in both the appeals is interrelated; hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order. The appellant stated that he had sought various information viz. the details of assets & liability, income, copy of form 16, loan etc. availed by Shri Sunil Krishan Malaviya but the information has not been supplied. The APIO stated that the information relates to a third party and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the third party has objected to the disclosure stating that the appellant is his estranged son-in-law and there are disputes pending before the courts and no information should be disclosed. The appellant pleaded that he needs the information for submission to the court so that full facts are brought on record. He also requested for a copy of the letter written by the respondent to Shri Sunil Krishan Malaviya (as per Section 11 of the RTI Act) and the reply given by him. The APIO stated that he will supply the information.
The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.
The appellant has pleaded that the information is required by him for submission to the Court so that full facts can be brought on record. If it be so, the appropriate remedy available to him would be to apply to the concerned Court for summoning the records of the respondent but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief. However, as agreed by the APIO he should supply copy of the letter written to Shri Sunil Kumar Malaviya and the reply received from him, to the appellant within two weeks. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Ranjan Malviya v. ITI Limited in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001842+002388/8247