Inspection of files relating to order u/s 171(3) of IT Act issued in respect of Shri Mahendra D. Dhruva by ITO - Appellant: larger public interest involved as the ITO has issued wrong order in favour of assessee - CIC: denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld
1 Dec, 2013FACTS
Vide RTI dt 22.4.13, appellant had sought inspection of all files relating to order u/s 171(3) of IT Act issued in respect of Shri Mahendra D. Dhruva by Shri Clarence Menezes, ITO 20(2)(2) Mumbai.
2 CPIO vide letter dt 9.5.13, denied the information u/s 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. 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. as the third party had objected to any information being shared.
3. An appeal was filed on 13.5.13.
4. AA vide order dt 7.6.13, upheld the decision of the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he was seeking information due to larger public interest as the ITO 20(2)(2) had wrongly issued an order in favour of the assessee enabling her to apply in MHADA’ Public Lottery 2010. CPIO submitted that the appellant was seeking personal information in respect of third party and as no larger public interest was there, his request has been denied.
DECISION
6. The Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO/AA in denying information u/s 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. 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. of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri V.P. Gupta v. ITO in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000816