Letters issued by IT relating to verification of Form 15H and 15G – PIO denied it as third party personal financial information - CIC: denial statistical information on the grounds of the third party information is irregular and ill-conceived
2 Sep, 2013FACTS
1. Vide RTI dt 11.1.12, appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to letters issued by the IT Department relating to verification of Form 15H and 15G.
2. CPIO vide letter dt 9.2.12, observed that in response to the information sought, letters were issued to persons who had filed 15H/15G asking them if they had any objection to information being furnished to the appellant. As the third party objected to their personal financial information being shared, the same was denied 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. .
3. An appeal was filed on 16.2.12.
4. AA vide order dt 16.3.12, observed that the appellant is unable to explain the reason for seeking personal information of third parties, who have objected to sharing such information. Moreover, in respect of query no.7, the appellant had asked for names of persons in whose case, sources could not be explained. This information relating to IT Return, is exempted 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. and in this connection the AA referred to the CIC decision in the Milap Choraria case. The decision of CPIO was upheld and the appeal disposed of.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he has sent his written submissions dt 5.8.13 and further added that denial of information by the CPIO was unjustified as the information which he has sought is not personal information but rather statistical data. The appellant also insisted that for denying the information, the CPIO should be penalized under appropriate sections of the RTI Act.
6. Written submissions dt 5.8.13 and 12.8.13 of the appellant are taken on record.
DECISION
7. The Commission takes a very serious view of the cavalier manner in which the CPIO has provided a response to the RTI. Of the 8 queries raised by the appellant, barring query no.7, the information sought by the appellant was purely of a statistical nature and hence denial of the information on the grounds of the third party information was irregular and ill-conceived. It is also disconcerting that the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. It merely shows that due diligence has not been exercised by the public authority in responding to the RTI.
8. We direct the CPIO to furnish information, which is of statistical nature except the names of assessees as sought for in query no.7 of the RTI, within three weeks from date of receipt of the order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri K.K. Garg v. ITO in File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000491